## Facts

- Gladys Escola, a restaurant waitress, stocked Coca-Cola bottles in a refrigerator as part of her job.
- A route driver for the Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno delivered cases of bottled Coca-Cola and stacked them under and behind the counter, where they remained for at least 36 hours.
- Shortly before the incident, Escola moved the top case to a nearby cabinet about three feet from the refrigerator.
- While transferring bottles one-by-one into the refrigerator, a bottle exploded in Escola’s right hand after she had placed three bottles and moved the fourth about 18 inches from the case.
- The bottle broke into two jagged pieces, causing a deep cut to Escola’s thumb and palm and severing blood vessels, nerves, and muscles.
- Witnesses heard a loud “pop” and testified the bottle did not strike the case, refrigerator door, or another bottle before exploding; liquid sprayed on nearby people and surfaces.
- The bottle was discarded soon after the incident, but a diagram recorded the fracture line.
- Escola alleged the bottler was negligent by selling bottles that were dangerous and likely to explode due to excessive gas pressure or a bottle defect.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur allowed an inference of the bottler’s negligence when a carbonated beverage bottle exploded during ordinary, careful handling.
2. Whether, as a matter of public policy, a manufacturer or bottler should be held strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products placed on the market for use without inspection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment for Escola.
- The court held that the circumstances permitted application of res ipsa loquitur and allowed the jury to infer negligence by the bottler.
- The court rejected a rigid “exclusive control” requirement and held the plaintiff need not eliminate every other possible cause; it was enough to show it was more likely than not that defendant’s negligence caused the explosion.
- Res ipsa loquitur shifted to the defendant the burden of producing evidence explaining the accident, while the plaintiff retained the ultimate burden of persuasion.
- Justice Traynor concurred in the result but argued the bottler should be held absolutely liable for injuries caused by defective products placed on the market for use without inspection.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur applies when an accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and the defendant is the probable responsible party.
- “Exclusive control” for res ipsa loquitur is not applied mechanically; the plaintiff need not negate all alternative causes, only show a reasonable basis that defendant’s negligence was more likely than not the cause.
- When res ipsa loquitur applies, it creates an inference of negligence that shifts to the defendant the burden of going forward with evidence to explain the occurrence.
- Concurrence: A manufacturer who markets a product intended for use without inspection should be strictly liable when a defect causes injury, regardless of privity, because the manufacturer can insure against and distribute the costs of product-caused injuries.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a negligence verdict by applying res ipsa loquitur to an exploding bottle during normal handling, permitting an inference that the bottler’s processes caused the defect; a separate concurrence urged replacing negligence-based proof with strict liability for defective products placed into commerce for use without inspection.


Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944)