Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling vs. Dolinski Case Study INSTRCmONS: Read the case and the important bulleted points below, then answer the questions provided. Contack your instructor if you have any questions of problems as you work through this sssignment. Here are some things to heep in mind as you tachle this case: - This Mr. Dolinglit is an employee at the Sea and Ski suntan totion factory. - He buys a botlie of Squit from a vending machine at the factory. - After dinking a portion of the sode, he finds a dead mouse in the botlle. - He exps, olaiming medical costs and mental anguish. - Shoshone is the botller and the distributor of the product. shoshone Cocs-Cola Botiling Company v. Dofiostd 420 P. 2d 855 (Nev. Sup. Ct. 1966, rehearing denied 1967) The important question presented by this appeal is whether Nevada should fudicially adopt the doctine of strict tort liability against a manufachurer and distributor of a botlied beverage. Subordinate questions are also involved and will be discussed. 1. Leo Dolncki suffered physical and mental distress when he partially consumed the contents of a botlle of "Squitt containing a decomposed mouse As a consenuease he fled this aclion for demeges against Shoshone Coca-Cola Botting Company, the menufacturer and distibutor of "Squitt" His complaint alleged alternative theories of liability; breach of the implied warranties of quality (which theory this cout has rejected, in the absence of privity of contract..); and strict tort liability. The breach of warranty and negigence clains were subsequently abendoned, and the case was presented to the jury solely upon the doctrine of strict tort Fiabilily. The jury favored Doliosli with its verdict and fixed his damages at 52,500 . This appeal by Shoshone ensued. We affim the verdict and judgment since, in our view, pubicic policy demands that one who places upon the market a botiled beverage in a condilion dangerous for use must be held strictly liable to the ultimste user for injuries resulting from such use, although the seller has exercised all reasonable care, and the user has not entecsd iota a contractual relation with him. Perhaps the supporting policy ressons are best expressed by William L Prosser in his article, "The Fall of the Citsdel," 50 Minn. L. Rev. 791, 799 (1960): -The public interest in human salety requires the maximum possible protection for the user of the product. and those best able to afford it are the suppliers of the chathel. By placing their goods ysan the market, the suppliers represent to the public that they are suitable and safe for use; and by peckaging. advertising, and othenwise, they do everything they can to induce that belief. The middleman is no more than a conduit, a mere mechanical device, through which the thing is to reach the ullimate user. The supplier has fiviled and solicited the use; and when it leads to disester, he should not be permitted to svoid the responsibility by seying that he made no contrect with the consumer, or that he used all reasonable care." In Escola v. Coca-Cola Botting Co, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P, 2d 430, 440 (1944), Justice Traynor, in a concuming opinion, wrote: "Even if there is no negligence, however, publio pellicy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to lille and health inherent in defective products that reach the marhet." Thet point of visw ultimately became the phillosophy of the full