Coralnick v. Abbotts Dairies, Inc.

11 A.2d 143, 337 Pa. 344, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 409
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 10, 1940
DocketAppeal, 366
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 11 A.2d 143 (Coralnick v. Abbotts Dairies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coralnick v. Abbotts Dairies, Inc., 11 A.2d 143, 337 Pa. 344, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 409 (Pa. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a grocer, sold milk produced by defendant. Shortly before the accident defendant’s driver delivered a case of bottled milk in a partitioned box. While plaintiff was removing a bottle from the container to place it in his refrigerator, the bottle broke cutting his hand. No proof was attempted to show what caused the bottle to break. The defendant did not manufacture the bottle nor warrant that it was free from defects. The limit of its duty was to provide against defects discernible upon reasonable inspection and to handle the bottles with reasonable care. There is not anything to show it failed of its duty in these respects. We cannot , conjecture that it may have done so. The mere happening of the accident did not establish negligence, and that only was shown. The proof offered by plaintiff clearly failed, to support the burden imposed upon him.. As was said by the learned court below: “Under the evidence the only reasonable inference that can be deduced is that the accident was due to a latent unsuspected defect: McSorley v. Katz, 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 243.”

There being causes apparent, other than those within defendant’s control, to which the accident might with equal fairness be attributed, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply: Norris v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 334 Pa. 161. The direction of a verdict for defendant was necessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Frankel v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.
48 Pa. D. & C.2d 194 (Columbia County Court of Common Pleas, 1970)
Webb v. Zern
220 A.2d 853 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Hadley v. Hillcrest Dairy, Inc.
171 N.E.2d 293 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co. Inc.
158 N.E.2d 342 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Leggieri v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co.
171 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1959)
Nossall v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
81 Pa. D. & C. 468 (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 1952)
Johnson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Willmar, Inc.
51 N.W.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
McNitt v. Benner
75 Pa. D. & C. 265 (Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Smolen v. Grandview Dairy, Inc.
276 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Otto Milk Co. v. Washington City
69 A.2d 399 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
Dillon v. William S. Scull Co.
64 A.2d 525 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Honea v. City Dairy, Inc.
140 P.2d 369 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
Robinson v. Charles E. Hires Co.
48 Pa. D. & C. 281 (Philadelphia County Municipal Court, 1943)
Sierocinski v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
118 F.2d 531 (Third Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.2d 143, 337 Pa. 344, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coralnick-v-abbotts-dairies-inc-pa-1940.