## Facts

- Sharon Proos Kosters, a retail customer, picked up a six-pack carton of 7‑Up in a grocery store, carried it under her arm, and walked toward checkout.
- A bottle slipped out of the carton, hit the floor, exploded, and glass struck Kosters’s eye, causing blindness in one eye.
- The carton was an “over-the-crown”/“neck-thru” design intended to be carried from the top and lacking side restraints that would prevent bottle slippage when held from underneath.
- Olinkraft designed/manufactured the carton and sold it to Brooks Bottling Company, a regional 7‑Up franchisee/bottler.
- Seven‑Up did not bottle or distribute the product in Michigan; it franchised the brand, supplied concentrate, and maintained brand standards through the franchise relationship.
- The franchise agreement required that cases, bottles, and crowns be of a type and design approved by Seven‑Up and that certain materials be approved before use.
- Brooks obtained Seven‑Up’s approval for the carton design, purchased cartons from manufacturers, packaged the product, and sold it to retailers across much of Michigan, including the store where the injury occurred.
- Kosters settled with Brooks, Olinkraft, and the retailer for $30,000 before trial against Seven‑Up.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Michigan law, a franchisor/trademark owner that approves packaging design can be treated as a responsible “seller” or supplier for products-liability-type recovery despite not manufacturing or distributing the product in the forum state.
2. Whether Seven‑Up could be held liable for breach of implied warranty where it did not manufacture, handle, or ship the carton and claimed its approval related only to trademark graphics.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the carton design was defective in light of reasonably foreseeable consumer handling.
4. Whether a general verdict for the plaintiff could stand when multiple theories were submitted to the jury and the defendant challenged the legal viability of some theories.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the $150,000 general verdict for Kosters against Seven‑Up.
- The court held that it was proper to submit implied-warranty/products-liability-type theories to the jury given Seven‑Up’s contractual approval rights and its role in marketing the branded product to consumers.
- The court concluded the evidence supported a finding that the carton was defective for foreseeable handling and that Seven‑Up’s participation through approval authority could support liability.
- The general verdict was sustained because at least one theory (implied warranty/products liability as understood under Michigan law) was legally valid, properly instructed, and supported by sufficient evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Michigan law, implied warranty functions as the principal doctrinal vehicle for products-liability-type recovery and may extend beyond the immediate manufacturer where the defendant is closely associated with putting the product into the stream of commerce.
- A franchisor/trademark owner may be subject to implied-warranty/products-liability obligations to consumers when it retains and exercises meaningful approval authority over key product-related features such as packaging design and benefits from consumer reliance on the brand.
- A product or its packaging may be found defectively designed when it fails to protect against reasonably foreseeable consumer handling, even if the injury arises from ordinary carry/use rather than misuse.
- A general verdict will be upheld if at least one submitted theory is legally sound and supported by the evidence, even if other submitted theories are disputed, so long as any error is not prejudicial in light of the valid basis for liability.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit, applying Michigan law, affirmed a jury verdict holding Seven‑Up liable for injuries caused by a defective 7‑Up carton design, reasoning that Seven‑Up’s packaging-approval control and brand-based consumer reliance permitted implied-warranty/products-liability recovery and that the general verdict was supported by at least one properly submitted, evidence-supported theory.


Kosters v. Seven-Up Co., 595 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1979)