Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company vs. Dolinski

Categories: Coca ColaCompanyLaw

The offender appealed the choice by the State of Nevada Path Court which awarded the complainant money for his physical and psychological damages after the complainant bought and taken in part of a Squirt soda which included a dead mouse, hair and dung in the Squirt bottle. In order to hear this case, the state of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability (Cheeseman, 2013 p. 110). The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the complainant $2,500 dollars for his physical and psychological damages (Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Business V.

Dolinski, 1966 p. 859).


There are two issues in this case: "should the state of Nevada judicially adopt the teaching of rigorous liability? The evidence of the decomposed mouse discovered on the bottom of the bottle could have been put by another celebration other than the manufacturer or the distribution business. A time lapse exists between the time the bottle was capped off and the time it was positioned in the hands of the plaintiff. Much of pursuing celebration's injuries might be tied to other variables in spite of drinking the soda.

Get quality help now
checked Verified writer

Proficient in: Coca Cola

star star star star 5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

On the other hand, the injuries might have solely come from the drink however to what level, and "if so, existed a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that triggered the Plaintiff's injury" (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 111).


The Supreme Court of Nevada did take the teaching of stringent liability. They ruled that Shoshone, the Coca-Cola bottle maker, is held responsible for Dolinski's defective bottle of coca-cola. The lawsuit was chosen in favor of Dolinski offered the details of the case.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

In the beginning, they were leaning towards not holding Shoshone responsible due to the fact that there was no evidence that the mouse remained in the bottle at the time of purchase from the vending device. Nevertheless, this is an eye opener on any case that is being provided to the court, the information, proof, and proof are a crucial player in a lawsuit. The defendant was positive when bringing this case to the court because of the physical and psychological tension he faced after the occurrence. The complainant had the ability to appeal because of the inadequate evidence and the case was ruled in their favor. In the end, the court embraced the teaching of strict liability which would permit for the defendant to win this case and holding Shoshone liable.


In regards to the doctrine of strict liability, it “applies to sellers and lessors of products who are engaged in the business of selling and leasing products” (Cheeseman, 2013, pg. 107). Both the manufacturing and distributing companies were held liable under the doctrine. Although one party may have been responsible for being negligent such as the manufacturing having the open bottle exposed and transportation having the sealed bottles, they both share the actions of bringing injury to the plaintiff. The question still exists on how the mouse ended up in the bottle. The testimony of the toxicologist can also bring more questions as to how long the mouse had been in the bottle because it can bring doubts on the data. If the mouse had been in the manufacturing plant, then an inspection may be required to be done at the manufacturing plant.

The tort of negligence assumed to be brought by the Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company does not make them liable to all the claims of injuries to the plaintiff. Dolinski could have been caused by other conditions or by consuming other products depending on the extent of the injuries. Medically, is the evidence able to ensure the injuries were caused by the consumption of the soft drink without a doubt? The possibility still exists of the tampering of the soft drink before the plaintiff drank it. It could have been caused by sick joke from another coworker. The evidence must show full proof of the mouse being found in the drink due to the company.


Legal concepts applied within Business management

Because strict liability is a tort doctrine, privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not required. In other words, 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 (Cheeseman, 2013, pg. 109). Companies should be more careful inspecting the products when they receive them from the prior chain of distribution and before passing it to the next level, this way they can correct any problem before the product touches the consumer’s hands. It is true that the mouse got to the Squirt bottler in one of the chain of distribution, but all the others were also negligent for continuing the distribution process.

Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). Business Law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (8th ed.) upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company V. Dolinski, No. 5112, 420 [P.2d855 (1966) 82 Nev. 439] Available at:

Updated: Jul 06, 2022
Cite this page

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company vs. Dolinski. (2016, Apr 27). Retrieved from

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company vs. Dolinski essay
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment