Family to sue over Coke's big bang
20 July 2003
By JON STEPHENSON
Coca-Cola is being sued by an Auckland family for more than $130,000 after a
Coke bottle exploded in the back of their car.
Rasoul Ajdani, his wife Fatima and 11-year-old Jason were left shaken and
bleeding when fragments from the 600ml plastic bottle tore into their flesh
as they were driving home in January 2001.
The Iranian immigrant family, who had bought the bottle only hours earlier,
needed medical treatment. Fatima was left with a scarred forearm and
headaches while Jason - now 13 - suffers ongoing psychological problems such
as nightmares.
The family's 1994 Honda Domani sustained $4000 damage when shards from the
Coke bottle pierced the upholstery.
Coca-Cola Amatil, the New Zealand licensee of a company that last year made
more than $5.3 billion profit, eventually offered the Ajdanis $4000 for
"out-of-pocket expenses".
In July 2001 the company offered $21,000 to settle the matter but
negotiations dragged. A year later Coca-Cola said it was no longer prepared
to settle.
The Ajdanis are now suing the company for $35,000 for psychiatric harm to
Jason, plus costs ($4000 for the damaged car and more than $25,000 in legal
fees). They also want to recover lost earnings, which they estimate at
$75,000.
Coca-Cola said it manufactured more than 300 million bottles a year here and
had "never encountered anything like this before". However, the company had
not challenged the Ajdanis' account of events.
US-based firm Plastic Technologies tested the bottle's remains for
Coca-Cola. Its report said it was "likely that the (Coke bottle's) failure
was catastrophic, as evidenced by the large number of cracks and tears which
are symptomatic of high tearing forces and rapid burst failure".
It also said it was "likely the bottle was not exposed to abnormally high
temperatures and pressures over an extended period of time".
Coca-Cola insisted there was no evidence of negligence. It claimed that
damages awarded for mental trauma were traditionally "very small" and the
Ajdanis had shown no evidence that mental trauma had been caused by the
exploding bottle.
However, a report prepared by psychologist Nigel Latta said Jason had been
severely traumatised by the explosion and was suffering markedly in his
personal, social and academic life. Another report, from ACC registered
counsellor and psychotherapist Colin Wrennall, said Jason had acute
post-traumatic stress disorder.
Coca-Cola said the Ajdanis were covered by ACC. But Rasoul Ajdani, who was
off work for six months after the incident, had a claim for compensation
rejected. He said his business paid up to $10,000 a month in tax and he was
disappointed his family "didn't get a cent" from the corporation.
"We are good citizens and I can't understand why they're treating us like
this."
Rasoul Ajdani was especially angry at what he saw as Coca-Cola's
indifference to his family's plight. He didn't want to sue the company but
felt there was no alternative.
The Ajdanis' statement of claim has been filed in the Auckland District
Court but a hearing date has not been set.
Coca-Cola did not return calls.
20 July 2003
By JON STEPHENSON
Coca-Cola is being sued by an Auckland family for more than $130,000 after a
Coke bottle exploded in the back of their car.
Rasoul Ajdani, his wife Fatima and 11-year-old Jason were left shaken and
bleeding when fragments from the 600ml plastic bottle tore into their flesh
as they were driving home in January 2001.
The Iranian immigrant family, who had bought the bottle only hours earlier,
needed medical treatment. Fatima was left with a scarred forearm and
headaches while Jason - now 13 - suffers ongoing psychological problems such
as nightmares.
The family's 1994 Honda Domani sustained $4000 damage when shards from the
Coke bottle pierced the upholstery.
Coca-Cola Amatil, the New Zealand licensee of a company that last year made
more than $5.3 billion profit, eventually offered the Ajdanis $4000 for
"out-of-pocket expenses".
In July 2001 the company offered $21,000 to settle the matter but
negotiations dragged. A year later Coca-Cola said it was no longer prepared
to settle.
The Ajdanis are now suing the company for $35,000 for psychiatric harm to
Jason, plus costs ($4000 for the damaged car and more than $25,000 in legal
fees). They also want to recover lost earnings, which they estimate at
$75,000.
Coca-Cola said it manufactured more than 300 million bottles a year here and
had "never encountered anything like this before". However, the company had
not challenged the Ajdanis' account of events.
US-based firm Plastic Technologies tested the bottle's remains for
Coca-Cola. Its report said it was "likely that the (Coke bottle's) failure
was catastrophic, as evidenced by the large number of cracks and tears which
are symptomatic of high tearing forces and rapid burst failure".
It also said it was "likely the bottle was not exposed to abnormally high
temperatures and pressures over an extended period of time".
Coca-Cola insisted there was no evidence of negligence. It claimed that
damages awarded for mental trauma were traditionally "very small" and the
Ajdanis had shown no evidence that mental trauma had been caused by the
exploding bottle.
However, a report prepared by psychologist Nigel Latta said Jason had been
severely traumatised by the explosion and was suffering markedly in his
personal, social and academic life. Another report, from ACC registered
counsellor and psychotherapist Colin Wrennall, said Jason had acute
post-traumatic stress disorder.
Coca-Cola said the Ajdanis were covered by ACC. But Rasoul Ajdani, who was
off work for six months after the incident, had a claim for compensation
rejected. He said his business paid up to $10,000 a month in tax and he was
disappointed his family "didn't get a cent" from the corporation.
"We are good citizens and I can't understand why they're treating us like
this."
Rasoul Ajdani was especially angry at what he saw as Coca-Cola's
indifference to his family's plight. He didn't want to sue the company but
felt there was no alternative.
The Ajdanis' statement of claim has been filed in the Auckland District
Court but a hearing date has not been set.
Coca-Cola did not return calls.
