The side of a NOS energy drink can lists quite a few ingredients. You can't tell just by looking which is which.

In a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Jordan Bell claims he knew exactly what he was staring at when he emptied his can of NOS after taking a few sips. Even if it wasn't included on the label.

"The defendants sold the NOS purchased by the plaintiff for human consumption and represented to consumers that it was free of animal parts," his civil claim reads.

"The plaintiff drank the NOS. Following consumption of NOS, the plaintiff shook the can, believing that there was something inside. The can was opened and inside was a decomposing mouse."

Mice unwelcome in beverages

This week, Bell filed a notice of civil claim against Coca-Cola Ltd. as well as Fuze Beverages, Monster Energy and 7-Eleven Canada.

Coca-Cola owns Fuze, which launched NOS. The company transferred ownership of its energy drink business to Monster Energy in 2015 after buying a 16.7 per cent stake in the company.

Bell claims he bought the can of NOS at a 7-Eleven in Mission in February 2016.

He claims it was impossible for him to have seen the mouse before he started drinking from the can.

Bell also says that when he contacted Coca-Cola about his discovery, the company "offered him merchandise to promote the 'NOS' beverage."

"The reaction by the company that makes the beverage — basically: 'Here's a shirt.' ... was appalling," Bell's lawyer, John Green, told the CBC.

"The case is more about ensuring proper food production standards. You should not have mice in cans of food beverages out there. That kind of thing, if it's going on and if it happened, then it indicates that there is a serious problem at the plant that the beverage was produced by."

Jordan Bell claims he found this mouse at the bottom of a can of NOS in 2016. He is now suing Coca-Cola. (John Green)

Coca-Cola did not provide a comment by deadline. And 7-Eleven had not yet replied to an email sent Tuesday. No response has been filed to the claim.

Green said his client went to poison control authorities after ingesting the drink and spent a couple of days feeling ill.

He is suing for damages which include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever and psychological injuries. Green said he's still wary of canned beverages.

Bell claims Coca-Cola breached a duty of care to him by failing to adequately inspect the system that produced the can of NOS.

He is seeking punitive damages "to express condemnation of the defendants' conduct, to advance public safety and to achieve the goal of both specific and general deterrence."

Precedent setting 1944 mouse

It's not the first time Canadian courts have been asked to consider the legal ramifications of an unexpected mouse in a Coca-Cola product. In 1944, an Ontario Court of Appeal judgment sided with a Hamilton woman who sued the company after going to a restaurant, ordering a piece of pie and a bottle of Coke and then making an unfortunate discovery.

"On proceeding to drink it she noticed an unpleasant taste," the old ruling reads. "She called the attention of the waitress to it, and on examination a dead mouse was found in the bottle. The appellant had some illness as the result."

The original trial judge in that case said he was "satisfied that no mouse could get into a bottle during the period it was being processed." He said it was more likely the rodent was "placed there surreptitiously after its processing had been completed."

But in a split decision, the appeals court said a preponderance of evidence suggested the manufacturer was responsible. They also noted that the contents still "fizzed" when the bottle was opened.

"Although an examination might have been made by the plaintiff, and, if made, would possibly have revealed the mouse, such an examination was not reasonably to be anticipated, and the manufacturer was therefore liable," the ruling says.

One judge dissented, saying that every bottle in 1944 passed by six different inspectors whose jobs were so exacting they were replaced every 20 minutes. He thought it more likely the mouse entered the bottle in the retailer's stockroom.

The award in that ruling was $350. Bell's lawsuit doesn't specify an amount.

None of the claims have been proven in court.