Simmons v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co‪.‬

The opinion of the court was delivered by This was an action based on breach of an implied warranty to
recover damages for personal injuries caused by drinking part of
a bottle of Coca-Cola which contained a packet of safety matches.
The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and
defendant appeals. The basis of plaintiff's action was that
defendant in bottling and putting the Coca-Cola on the market for
immediate human consumption impliedly warranted that it was fit
for that purpose, and the contents of the bottle in question
being unfit for human consumption defendant thereby breached such
implied warranty. The undisputed facts insofar as they are pertinent to the issue
involved may be briefly stated. Plaintiff, her three sisters, and
a niece and nephew went for an automobile ride in the city of
Wichita. They stopped at a service station where there was a
coin-operated Coca-Cola machine. The Coca-Cola for the machine
was bottled in defendant's plant, purchased from defendant by the
service station operator and placed in the machine either by the
defendant or by employees of the service station. While the niece
and nephew went to a nearby drug store, the plaintiff and her
sister, not having the correct change to operate the Coca-Cola
machine, ordered the Coca-Cola from an employee of the service
station. He got change for them, put it in the machine, took out
the Coca-Cola, opened the bottles and handed them to plaintiff
and her sisters. After plaintiff drank one-third to one-half of
the beverage, her sister called to her attention that there was
some foreign substance in the bottle, which was later determined
to be a book of matches. Plaintiff immediately took the bottle
and its contents into the service station and showed it to the
owner. He put the cap back on the bottle and plaintiff took it to
her home. Shortly after consuming the beverage, plaintiff became
violently ill and was taken to the hospital for treatment.
Inasmuch as defendant does not complain of the amount of the
judgment, the effect on plaintiff from drinking the contaminated
beverage needs no further mention.