The measure of liability imposed by the law upon the bottler and seller of coca cola has been established in Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 175, 145 S. E., 14; Perry v. Bottling Co., 196 N. C., 690, 146 S. E., 805; Harper v. Bullock, 198 N. C., 448, 152 S. E., 405. See, also, Annotation, 63 A. L. R., p. 340.
The evidence brings this case within the rule of liability announced in the Perry cases, supra.
*57Tbe trial judge declined to permit tlie defendant to offer evidence to the effect that it had received no notice from any vendee of coca cola or from its drivers, with respect to any foreign substances contained in beverage so bottled and sold. Exception to this ruling cannot he sustained. The identical point was discussed in Cashwell v. Bottling Works, 174 N. C., 324, 93 S. E., 901. It is written in that case: “Á seller may not have knowledge of the danger lurking in his goods, but this matter of knowledge may be produced by his failure to exercise proper care to acquire it; and knowledge is not an essential or requisite element of liability for the consequence, if the dangerous character of goods could be eliminated by the use of that degree of care which the law required of him under the circumstances.”
The defendant also assigned as error the ruling of the trial judge excluding the testimony of a witness for the defendant to the effect that in his opinion the glass found in the bottle could not have passed through defendant’s bottling machine. This ruling is correct for the reason that such testimony plainly invaded the province of the jury.
We have examined all the exceptions and find no reversible error.