In Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (1944) 24 Cal.2d 453, a bottle of Coca-Cola exploded and injured the plaintiff, who was a waitress in a restaurant. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of California. The Court permitted the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur after plaintiff had established that no unreasonable extraneous force had acted upon the bottle subsequent to delivery, and upon the ground there was an inference that defendant failed to exercise due care in inspecting the bottle since it could be determined from the evidence that the bottle had a visual defect that could have been ascertained by a reasonable inspection. The evidence relied upon to create such an inference dealt with the inspection methods in the industry. It was pointed out that a sound bottle of carbonated liquid does not ordinarily explode if it is carefully handled. Where a bottle containing liquid under pressure does explode causing injury the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to supply an inference that the bottler was negligent, either in excessively charging the liquid, or in failing to discover a flaw in the bottle, if it is probable under the evidence that the defendant was negligent in either respect." The doctrine of strict liability had its genesis in a concurring opinion by Justice Roger Traynor He suggested that a manufacturer should be absolutely liable if, in placing a product on the market, it knew the product was to be used without inspection, and it proved to have a defect that caused injury. The policy considerations underlying this suggestion were that the manufacturer, unlike the public, can anticipate or guard against the recurrence of hazards, that the cost of injury may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured whereas the manufacturer can insure against the risk and distribute the cost among the consuming public, and that it is in the public interest to discourage the marketing of defective products. Justice Roger Traynor expressed his view that a manufacturer should be liable in tort for placing on the market a defective product that causes personal injury. ( Id. at p. 461 (conc. opn. of Traynor, J.).) Such liability, Justice Traynor reasoned, was justified because of a consumer's inability to prove that a defect was caused by a flaw in the manufacturing process, because the manufacturer is best able to reduce the risks of injury caused by product defects, and because a manufacturer can equitably distribute the loss broadly among the buying public as a cost of doing business. ( Id. at pp. 462-463.)The Court recognized that the doctrine may apply even though expert testimony is necessary to establish that the accident was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. In the Escola case, there was expert testimony as to such practices and on the basis of that evidence the court held it could reasonably be concluded that it was more probable than not that the bottle exploded as the result of negligence. As was said by Justice Traynor in Escola, `the cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business.' (24 Cal.2d p. 462; see also Rest.2d Torts, 402 A, com. c, pp. 349-350.) The manufacturer is in the best position to discover and guard against defects in its products and to warn of harmful effects; thus, holding it liable for defects and failure to warn of harmful effects will provide an incentive to product safety. ( Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 129 . . .; Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 501, 522-523. . . .) These considerations are particularly significant where medication is involved, for the consumer is virtually helpless to protect himself from serious, sometimes permanent, sometimes fatal, injuries caused by deleterious drugs." (26 Cal.3d at p. 611.)