## Facts

- A restaurant received a delivered case of 26-ounce Coca-Cola bottles from the bottler’s driver, who placed it near a refrigerated cooler.
- About 30–60 minutes later, a waitress began transferring bottles from the case into the cooler without moving the case.
- While lowering the third bottle into the cooler, the bottle exploded in her hand; the capped neck remained in her hand.
- Glass fragments scattered widely; a fragment punctured the median nerve at the waitress’s right wrist, causing serious injury.
- The bottle fragments were swept up and discarded soon after the incident.
- The waitress and the restaurant manager testified the bottle was not struck and appeared to explode spontaneously during ordinary handling.
- Evidence indicated no temperature extremes or abnormal handling before the explosion.
- The bottler presented evidence of its bottling/inspection procedures and expert testimony suggesting mishandling as a possible cause.

## Issues

1. Whether it was error to instruct the jury on contributory negligence when the record contained no evidence supporting a finding that the plaintiff mishandled the bottle.
2. Whether the strict products-liability claim should have been submitted to the jury where circumstantial evidence could support an inference that the bottle was defective when it left the bottler’s control.

## Decision

- Reversed the order denying a new trial and remanded for a new trial.
- Held it was reversible error to submit contributory negligence to the jury because the record lacked evidence from which contributory negligence could reasonably be found.
- Held it was error to refuse submission of strict liability in tort; circumstantial evidence permitted a jury to find it more probable than not that a defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control.
- Directed that, on retrial, the jury consider strict liability along with other properly supported theories, without an unsupported contributory-negligence submission.

## Legal Principles

- A contributory-negligence instruction is improper and reversible error when there is no evidentiary basis for a reasonable finding that the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the injury.
- Strict products liability applies to a seller of a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.
- To recover under strict liability, a plaintiff must present evidence from which a jury may find: (1) a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and (3) proximate causation.
- A product defect and its existence at the time it left the defendant’s control may be proved by circumstantial evidence; the accident and surrounding circumstances can support an inference of defect when other reasonable causes (misuse, mishandling, abnormal conditions) are excluded.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was allowed to consider contributory negligence without supporting evidence and because the plaintiffs were entitled to have strict products liability submitted to the jury based on circumstantial evidence suggesting the bottle was defective when it left the bottler’s control.


Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 188 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 1971)