CASE 6.1 STA TE COURT CASE Defect in Manufacture Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Dolinski 32 New. 439, 420 P.2d 855, 1966 New. Lexis 260 Supreme Court of Nevada \"In the case at hand, Shoshone contends that insuf- cient proof was offered to establish that the mouse was in the bottle of 'Squirt' when it left Shoshone's possession.\" Thompson, Justice Facts Leo Dolinski purchased a bottle of Squirt, a soft drink, from a vending machine at a Sea and Ski plant, his place of employment. Dolinski opened the bottle and consumed part of its contents. He immediately became ill. On examination, it was found that the bottle contained the decomposed bod}r of a mouse, mouse hair, and mouse feces. Dolinski suffered phys- ical and mental distress from consuming the decom- posed mouse and thereafter possessed an aversion to soft drinks. The Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Com- pany [Shoshone] had manufactured and distributed the Squirt bottle. Dohnski sued Shoshone, basing his lawsuit on the doctrine of strict liability. The trial court adopted the doctrine of strict liability, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. lin shone appealed. ISSUE Was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's injuries? Language of the Court In our view, public policy demands that one Iwho places upon the market a bottled beverage in a. condition dangerousfor use must be held strictly liable to the ultimate user for injuries resulting from. such use, although the sellerhas exercised all reasonable care. The plaint'l of- fered the expert testimony of a toxicologist who examined the bottle and contents on the day the plainti' drank from it. It was his opinion that the mouse \"had been deadra long time\" and that the dark stains (mouseeces) that he found on the bottom of the bottle must have been there We the liquid was added. Decision 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 Dolinslti. Ethics Questions Was it ethical for Shoshone to argue that it was not liable to Dolinski? Could this case have been \"faked"?I