Selissen v. Empire Bottling Co.

180 N.E.2d 324, 343 Mass. 779
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 15, 1962·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The female plaintiff, a customer in a provision market, was cut by shattered glass from an exploded bottle of carbonated beverage. The defendant in this action of tort was engaged in the business of bottling and selling soft drinks, some of which were on sale at the market. If it be assumed that the exploded bottle came from the defendant, a verdict was nevertheless rightly directed for it. Even if the excluded answers to interrogatories had been admitted (compare Falzone v. Burgoyne, 317 Mass. 493, 498), the plaintiff did not satisfy the burden of showing that there had been no mishandling after the bottle left the control of the defendant. Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co. Inc. 339 Mass. 177,183.

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

Selissen v. Empire Bottling Co., 180 N.E.2d 324, 343 Mass. 779 (Mass. 1962).

180 N.E.2d 324 (Selissen v. Empire Bottling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Ariens Co.
377 N.E.2d 954 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1978)
Coyne v. John S. Tilley Co. Inc.
331 N.E.2d 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
Levin v. Cliquot Club Co.
48 Mass. App. Dec. 79 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1972)
Murphy v. Narragansett Products Co.
31 Mass. App. Dec. 133 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1965)
LeBlanc v. Ford Motor Co.
191 N.E.2d 301 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1963)