In my opinion, this case has to do with the concept of product liability. Currently, the law states that the manufacturer of a good (tangible item) is responsible for making sure that the goods they produce are safe for consumers. In this case, Coca-Cola is responsible for making sure that the glass bottles for Coca-Cola are safe and will not harm consumers in any way. It is their job to test the bottles for malfunctioning parts so ensure that they are not defective upon delivery. Here, the Plaintiff, Gladys Escola, should claim that the bottles she received from Coca-Cola were defective upon delivery. As the case points out, Escola did nothing out of the ordinary to inflict damage on the bottles. She did not exert extraneous force on the bottles by or slamming them down on the ground or shaking them excessively. Therefore, she will Escola will claim that the bottles were defective at the time Coca-Cola (the defendant) relinquished control. I have formed this opinion because sound and properly prepared bottles of Soda do not ordinarily explode when carefully handled. In conclusion, I believe that Escola will win this case because Coca-Cola is responsible for the safety of the products they give to customers. If evidence proves that Coca-Cola did not perform rigorous tests and other safety precautions, they did not do their job as a manufacturer. The only argument that Coca-Cola would have is if they were to provide a disclaimer (a statement refusing to accept responsibility for something) and placed this in the contract agreements. IF Coca-Cola had this and Escola agreed to the terms, she would be stating that she accepts full responsibility for whatever happens to the products after Coca-Cola passed the “title” of the bottles to her.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document