Question

4. Escola, a waitress, was injured when a bottle of soda exploded in her hand while she was putting it into the restaurant's cooler. The bottle came from a shipment that had remained under the counter for thirty-six hours after being delivered by the bottling company. The bottler had subjected the bottle to the method of testing for defects commonly used in the industry, and there is no evidence that Escola or anyone else did anything to damage the bottle between its delivery and the explosion. Escola brought an action against the bottler for damages. Since she is unable to show any specific acts of negligence on its part, she seeks to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Should she be able to recover on this theory? Explain.

Answer 1

Answer:

possibly

Explanation:

We use the term the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could possibly be relied on because, if the court deemed that there's considerable evidence there was a probability that the bottler was negligent with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda.

However, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may not be relied on if there's evidence of an absence of negligence by the bottler with regard to the safety of the bottle of soda. In other words, evidence shows that there's a greater probability that the waitress may have mishandled the bottle of soda or was negligent in some way leading her injuries.