“In the case at hand, Shoshone contends that insufficient 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. Upon examination, it was found that the bottle contained the decomposed body of a mouse, mouse hair, and mouse feces. Dolinski suffered physical and mental distress from consuming the decomposed mouse and thereafter possessed an aversion to soft drinks. The Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Shoshone) had manufactured and distributed the Squirt bottle. Dolinski 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. Shoshone 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 who places upon the market a bottled beverage in a condition dangerous for use must be held strictly liable to the ultimate user for injuries resulting from such use, although the seller has exercised all reasonable care. The plaintiff offered the expert testimony of 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. 

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 Dolinski. 

Ethics Questions: Was it ethical for Shoshone to argue that it was not liable to Dolinski? Could this case have been “faked”?