These two actions for negligence brought by Wilfred Lajoie and his wife Irene Lajoie were tried together before a jury in the Androscoggin County Superior Court. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant moved that the Presiding Justice direct a verdict in each • case, which motion was denied in each case and exceptions taken. There were verdicts for the plaintiffs in the sums of $125 and $425 respectively.
The jury could have found, and undoubtedly did find, that ' in November 1951 the defendant had sold and delivered to the retail grocery store of Rene Parent & Son in Auburn, some bottles of “Sunset Ginger Ale,” which had been manufactured and bottled by the defendant in his bottling plant.
On or about November 25, 1951, Constance Lajoie, the fifteen-year-old daughter of the plaintiffs, went to the Parent store and purchased one of the quart bottles of Sunset Ginger Ale, that had been delivered to the store by the defendant. The bottle was dark green in color, with a side label and a top label. She carried the bottle home without opening it and placed it on the cupboard shelf in the kitchen. She there opened the bottle. The bottle reacted normally, *361 there was “nothing unusual.” There was evidence to indicate that the bottle had not been previously opened or tampered with. Miss Lajoie poured some of the ginger ale into a water glass and took it to her mother who was then in bed with a leg injury. The plaintiff, Irene Lajoie, took a swallow and said it “tasted funny,” but continued to drink, and then “wanted to have my father taste it because it didn’t taste so good.” The father tasted of it and suggested that it be divided among the children. Constance drank some. When Constance Lajoie started to divide it, she heard a “rattle sound in the bottle” and observed an “old dirty brush” in the bottom of the bottle, and “something like rust going up and down in the ginger ale.” The bottle, with the brush and the remaining liquid containing the particles of sediment or rust, were taken care of by Lajoie and were in evidence at the trial.
The plaintiff Irene Lajoie became seriously ill immediately after she drank the ginger ale. The daughter Constance also became ill for a short time. Dr. Archambault, who attended, testified that the “gastritis” in his opinion was caused by “the contaminated ginger ale.”
The defendant Bilodeau, apparently accepted the task of denial and explanation, and in defense offered evidence tending to show that his ginger ale consumed by Mrs. Lajoie was properly and carefully bottled in. accordance with modern methods of washing and sterilizing, which methods were thoroughly explained to the jury; that the bottling plant was regularly inspected and approved by State inspectors; that there were four separate and .independent inspections of each bottle passing through the plant; that there were no brushes on any of defendant’s machines like the one found in the plaintiff’s bottle, and defendant had never used such a brush; that the inspector at times was a fifteen-year-old boy; that the syrup and carbonated water goes into the bottle automatically and is automatically sealed; that at the *362 bottling plant 200 to 300 cases of 12 to 24 bottles per case go through inspection each day; that empty and returned bottles do come back to the plant “with marbles, pins, anything” but “never found anything after it had been capped;” that when an inspector is ill other men are used as inspectors; that in the opinion of the defendant Bilodeau, it was not “possible at all” for a brush to be in a bottle and to escape being seen or detected in some manner by an inspector. One of the inspectors admitted, however, that on final inspection he once found a cork stopper in a bottle.
From the record in this case the jury, if it believed the evidence of the plaintiff, could properly find that the bottle of ginger ale was in the same condition when opened by Constance Lajoie as it was when it left the defendant’s bottling plant.
On exceptions to refusal to direct a verdict, the evidence must be considered in that light which is most favorable to the plaintiff.
Barrett
v.
Greenall,
This is not a case where the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
is invoked, as in instances where the cause of accident is wholly unexplained and an inference of negligence may possibly be warranted from the accident itself.
Stodder
v.
Coca-Cola Bottling Plants,
The mere presence of the brush in the bottle is evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, where there is testimony which, if believed, indicates that the bottle had not been opened since leaving the defendant bottler. It could be properly inferred that the brush was there when processing of the bottle began, or was introduced during the filling of the bottle with ginger ale, and that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in permitting it to get into the bottle, or negligence in not discovering it in the bottle. The condition of the brush and the presence of other foreign matter, like particles of brush or rust, might show that the brush had been in the liquid for a long period. The Massachusetts court said in
Tonsman
v.
Greenglass,
The identical questions presented by this case, involving a foreign substance in bottled goods, have not previously been passed upon by the Law Court of Maine, but they have been decided in many other jurisdictions. In the case of
Middleboro Coca-Cola Bottling Works
v.
Campbell,
The record, of these two cases now under consideration, shows that there was evidence introduced by the plaintiffs from which, if believed, the jury was authorized to draw lawful inferences that establish liability on the part of the defendant bottler. Had the jury relied on the evidence of the defendant, it could have found that the defendant was *365 not guilty of any alleged negligence. Each of these two cases presented disputed questions of fact for jury determination, and the presiding justice was correct in his refusal to direct verdicts for the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.