Case Brief The Issue

Whether the state of Nevada should judicially adopt the doctrine of strict liability? If so, was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff’s injuries? The Rule Of The Law

Public policy demands that manufacturer, distributor, retailer, in other words, all in the

chain of distribution must be held strictly liable for marketing a bottle of beverage in a condition

dangerous for user for injuries resulting from such use, although the seller has exercised all

precaution. Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states that who

sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to

his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or

consumer, or to his property, if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition

in which it is sold. This rule applies although the seller has exercised all possible care in the

preparation and sale of his product, and the user or consumer has not bought the product from or

entered into any contractual relation with the seller. (Page 96, Legal Environment, Online

Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, Seventh Edition, by Henry R. Cheeseman.

Published by Prentice Hall, 2010). The Restatement (Third) of Torts, product liability, includes

the following definition of defect: A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution,

it contains manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate

in instructions or warnings. A product contains a manufacturing defect when the product departs

from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and

marketing of the product; and is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by

the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative

design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe (Page 96).

But the plaintiff in this case must still prove that his injury was caused by the defect in the

product and the defect existed before he consumed the product.

The Fact Of The Case

Leo Dolinski purchased a bottle of Squirt, a soft drink, from a vending machine at a Sea

and Ski plant at his place of employment. Dolinski opened the bottle and consumed part of its

contents. He immediately became ill. Upon examination, it was found that the bottle contained

the decomposed body of a mouse, mouse hair, and mouse feces. Dolinski visited a doctor and

was given medicine to counteract nausea. Dolinski claimed that he suffered physical and mental

distress from consuming the decomposed mouse in the Squirt bottle. The Shoshone Coca-Cola

Bottling Company had manufactured and distributed the Squirt bottle. Dolinski sued Shoshone,

basing his lawsuit on the doctrine of strict liability. The state of Nevada had not previously

recognized the doctrine of strict liability.

Plaintiff’s Position

The plaintiff, Leo Dolinski stated that he became ill after consuming the Squirt bottle that

has the decomposed body of a mouse, mouse hair and mouse feces in it. The plaintiff produced

expert testimony from a toxicologist who examined the bottle and contents on the day the

plaintiff drank from it. It was his opinion that the mouse “had been dead for a long time” and that

the dark stains (mouse feces) that he found on the bottom of the bottle must have been there

before the liquid was added. The plaintiff was seeking compensation for his physical and mental suffering and also asking for punitive damage.

. The Defense’s Position

Shoshone contends that insufficient proof was offered to establish that the mouse was in

the bottle of “Squirt” when it left Shoshone’s possession, therefore the defender is not liable for

the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Brief Review of the Court Decisions

Even though the state of Nevada had not previously recognized the doctrine of

strict liability. The trial court, however, adopted the doctrine of strict liability, and the jury

returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The supreme court of Nevada adopted the doctrine of

strict liability and held that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that there was a defect

in manufacture .The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of plaintiff

Dolinski.

Student Analysis

The trial court and the supreme court of Nevada has adopted the doctrine of strict liability

Since strict liability is a tort doctrine, privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant

is not required. The doctrine applies even if the injured party had no contractual relations with

the defendant. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and lessors of a defective product are

liable to the consumer who purchased the product and any user of the product. Users include the

purchaser or lessee, family members, guests, employees, customers, and persons who passively

enjoy the benefits of the product. Furthermore, manufacturers, distributors, sellers of a defective

product is also liable to third-party bystanders injured by the defective product. The courts

have stated that bystanders who are injured by a defective product should be entitled to the same

protection as a consumer or user. As business managers, we must implement effective quality control mechanism not only at production plants, but also at distribution and retail level to ensure

that incident tike this one never occur on our watch.