Coca Cola Case Study

Coca-Cola study case:

Fact:

Physical & mental distress suffered Mr. Dolinsky when he partially consumed the contents of a bottle of “Squirt” containing a decomposed mouse. But it’s an interesting fact that the toxicologist mentioned, 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.

(a)    Was it ethical for Shoshone to argue that it was not liable to Dolinski?

No, it’s totally unethical, due the court had a toxicology opinion, and he mentioned that the mouse was there before the liquid was added.

That means that the line of products in that part it’s no good because nobody revises about of the cleaning of the bottle before the liquid added to it.

(b)    Could this case have been faked?

No, because the court presents a toxicologist who revised the bottle and gave his opinion.

2.  The issue presented in the case is whether there was a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's (Leo) injuries.  Explain in your own words what is "defect in Manufacture."