Kosters v. Seven-Up Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
595 F.2d 347 (1979)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Sharon Kosters (plaintiff) removed a carton of 7-Up from a grocery-store shelf and was blinded in one eye when a bottle slipped out of the carton, hit the floor, and exploded, causing a piece of glass to strike Kosters’s eye. The carton was designed to be held from the top and lacked side strips to prevent a bottle from slipping out if held underneath. The carton was designed and manufactured by Olinkfrat, Inc., which sold it to the Brooks Bottling Company, a franchise of Seven-Up Company (Seven-Up) (defendant). Seven-Up approved the carton’s design, as required by the franchise agreement. Kosters settled her claims against Olinkfrat, Brooks, and the grocer and sued Seven-Up, alleging, among other claims, breach of implied warranty. Seven-Up argued that it was not liable because it approved cartons only for the graphics to ensure that Seven-Up’s trademark was properly displayed. The case was submitted to the jury on theories of negligence, strict liability, and contract. The jury returned a general verdict for Kosters. On appeal, Seven-Up argued that strict liability did not apply because Seven-Up did not supply the product and it could not be held liable based on implied warranty because it did not manufacture, handle, design, ship, or require the use of the carton.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merritt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
