20. Will the consumer be likely to prevail in an action against the store?

A products liability claim may be brought by a plaintiff under multiple different theories: (i) intent; (ii) negligence; (iii) strict liability; (iv) implied warranties; and (v) express warranties. The prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability includes (i) a commercial supplier of a product; (ii) producing or selling a defective product; (iii) actual and proximate cause; and (iv) damages. The plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration. Generally, privity between the parties is irrelevant except for certain warranty theories of liability.

C is correct. Under a strict liability theory of products liability, a commercial supplier has an absolute duty to make safe the products it produces or supplies. To this end, any commercial supplier in the chain of supply can be held liable for injuries caused by defective or unreasonably dangerous products produced or sold, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, the store was a commercial supplier of beverages and sold the consumer the contaminated bottle, causing an injury. Therefore, the consumer could prevail against the store.

A is incorrect. Under a strict liability theory, contributory negligence does not cut short a defendant's liability unless the plaintiff assumes the risk. Here, there is no indication that the consumer saw the snail, and therefore could not have assumed the risk of injury. The consumer was at most contributorily negligent, and therefore she would likely recover against the store.

B is incorrect. Any commercial supplier in the supply chain can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from defective products, regardless of whether they were negligent. Here, a bottle of soda became defective during the bottling process and was sold to the consumer by the store. Therefore, even though the negligence if any would lie with the bottler, the consumer would be able to recover in her claim against the store.

D is incorrect. Exclusive control is a concept connected to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and allows plaintiffs to create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by proving that (i) the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence; (ii) that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control; and (iii) that there are no other plausible explanations. Here, the store did not have exclusive control over the bottle and any negligence would lie with the bottler, Therefore, liability would attach to the store under a strict liability theory, not under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.