Title: Kuster v. Gould Nat'l Batteries
Citation: 429 P.2d 220, 71 Wash. 2d 474
Docket Number: 38492
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: June 22, 1967

71 Wn.2d 474 (1967) 429 P.2d 220 GUY A. KUSTER, Respondent, v. GOULD NATIONAL BATTERIES, Appellant.[*] No. 38492. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. June 22, 1967. Walsh &amp; Margolis, by Harry Margolis, for appellant. Levinson &amp; Friedman, Sam L. Levinson and Ronald J. Bland, for respondent. BARNETT, J.[] This is another products liability case based upon breach of warranty. The necessary purchase of an allegedly defective product was made by the plaintiff, Guy A. Kuster, as an employee of Lipsett Steel Products, *475 Inc. The item purchased along with four others of the same type was a 6-volt, heavy-duty, lead-acid battery. The purchase was made in December 1961, 14 months before the accident in question. The batteries were made by defendant Gould National Batteries, Inc., and sold in Seattle by Central Sales &amp; Service, Inc. Lipsett Steel operated a scrap metal processing yard in Seattle and had a diesel-electric crane in which the batteries were used. The plaintiff was a master mechanic in charge of maintaining heavy equipment for Lipsett Steel. He had installed the five batteries in the crane at the time they were purchased and they worked without problem until February 15, 1963. On that day it was necessary to start a diesel-electric switch engine which had "dead" batteries. In order to start the switch engine with power from the crane's batteries the crane was maneuvered alongside the switch engine by Lipsett Steel empolyees, including the plaintiff. When the two pieces of equipment were brought side by side, the plaintiff, while the crane's engine was running, attached one end of a jumper cable to the negative terminal of one of the batteries on the crane and touched the other end of the cable to the crane's metal frame drawing a spark. This procedure was followed for the purpose of determining polarity. About 10 to 15 seconds later one of the cells of that battery exploded. No one was injured by this explosion. Immediately thereafter, the jumper cable was disconnected from the battery which had exploded, the crane's engine was shut off, the knife switch connecting the battery series to the electrical system of the crane was thrown open to break the circuit, and the vent plugs were removed from the cells of all five batteries for the purpose of permitting some of the hydrogen gas (a product of the internal operation of lead-acid batteries) to escape. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the first explosion the plaintiff was inspecting one of the cells of a second battery when that cell exploded. This explosion resulted in injuries to plaintiff's right eye. Judgment was rendered by the trial court sitting without a jury for the plaintiff in the amount of $51,651.44. *476 The defendant's exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law raise the question as to whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that the battery explosion causing plaintiff's injury was due to a manufacturing defect. [1] In approaching the problem presented by this appeal we repeat the oft-cited rule that we will not substitute our judgment on disputed evidence for that of the finder of fact, and that our function is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. Hollingbery v. Dunn, 68 Wn.2d 75, 411 P.2d 431 (1966); Lantis v. Pfarr, 67 Wn.2d 994, 410 P.2d 900 (1966). In accordance with this rule the evidence as viewed most favorably to the plaintiff will be quoted or summarized. In regard to the plaintiff's own testimony he states that the batteries worked properly at all times during the 14 months in the crane. He said that the batteries were tested with an ammeter and they always showed normal charge and discharge, and he said the batteries were otherwise looked after and maintained. In his testimony upon cross-examination he indicated he had knowledge that batteries had exploded on occasion and that sparks or excessive heat could cause such explosions. Because of such occurrences, he said that he would not allow torches, fire or welding equipment in the vicinity of batteries. He indicated specifically that the cigarettes of all employees in the area of the batteries had been put out and that he had no tools in his hands except that he held the ends of the jumper cable. Exhibit 15, a manual on batteries, published by the Association of American Battery Manufacturers, has an informative statement on gas explosions of batteries. This exhibit was introduced into evidence by the defendant and the quoted portion below was read into the record by defendant's counsel in cross-examination of the plaintiff. Causes of short circuits in batteries are related on page 30 of the manual as follows: After the plaintiff testified about the circumstances of the explosion and injury and indicating that some possible external sources of ignition were not present, plaintiff called as an expert witness, Charles V. Smith. Mr. Smith is an owner of Northwest Laboratories, a commercial testing and investigative laboratory. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering and also a Master of Science degree. Mr. Smith has a long history of work in his profession and he testified that he has had experience with and had examined batteries. The following hypothetical *478 question was asked this witness by plaintiff's counsel. His answer follows: Mr. Smith continued in his testimony to describe the construction of a lead-acid battery indicating that the type of use a battery would be put to is a factor the manufacturer takes into consideration in the design of a battery and that batteries are built to prevent deterioration from hard usage situations. These are called heavy duty batteries which is the type of battery involved in this case. He stated that if a piece of metal breaks loose, heat or a spark can be produced by the piece of metal bridging the positive and negative plates of a battery and conducting electricity between them. (Hydrogen gas ignites at about 600 or 700 degrees Fahrenheit and a spark is about 6000 degrees.) He also stated that deterioration of the interior plates and grids is caused by ordinary use of the battery but that natural use would cause "A minute amount of deterioration, but not sloughing off." and that it would not be normal if the lead plates were properly manufactured for a dislodging to cause a short. Mr. Smith responded to the following questions on direct examination. George L. Henderson was called as an expert witness in behalf of the plaintiff. He is a professional engineer, having obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and is vocationally occupied as a consulting engineer. Mr. Henderson was asked substantially the same hypothetical question as propounded to Mr. Smith as quoted above. Mr. Henderson's response was that: Mr. Henderson also testified that sloughing off or breaking of the grid so that it intermittently touched would not occur if it was properly manufactured. *481 James H. Miller, an employee of the defendant, was called by the defendant as an expert witness. Parts of his testimony on cross-examination are quoted as relevant to the issues at hand. On the existence of hydrogen in batteries the following exchange is pertinent. Mr. Miller also testified about defectively manufactured batteries. Mr. Miller was examined by plaintiff's counsel about various manufacturing defects. And finally, on short circuits in batteries. [2] One of the defendant's contentions is that plaintiff's expert opinions have no probative value because facts consistent with the defendant's theory of the case, i.e., an outside source of ignition, were not included in the plaintiff's hypothetical questions. There is no merit to this contention. We quote from Wharton v. Department of Labor &amp; Indus., 61 Wn.2d 286, 289, 378 P.2d 290 (1963) which makes a complete disposition of the argument. The plaintiff's theory of the case is that a lead-acid battery in use for only 14 months and which has been properly cared for and serviced would not ordinarily explode without a manufacturing defect, and that this manufacturing defect caused the explosion. The hypothetical questions propounded to the two witnesses called by the plaintiff as experts were fair questions based upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The answers given to the hypothetical questions are of probative value. The idea that static *484 electricity was a possible source of ignition was put in evidence by the defendant in its cross-examination of the plaintiff, but in accordance with the Wharton case, supra, and cases cited therein, the lack of this element in the plaintiff's hypothetical questions does not mean the responses to them have no evidentiary value. We note that the defendant's counsel in his cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses did not embrace facts consistent with defendant's theory of the case in a hypothetical question. We note too that plaintiff's testimony did indicate precautions were taken by the plaintiff and other employees to prevent an explosion of the batteries by external ignition. Furthermore, the only testimony on static electricity as an external source of ignition came from plaintiff's witness Smith on cross-examination by the defendant's counsel. "Q. It could be possible that static electricity would set it [the explosion] off? A. Possibly." The defendant next argues that static electricity is a possible external source of ignition as pointed out in the first passage we quoted from exhibit 15 at page 476 of this opinion, and this source has not been reasonably ruled out by the evidence. Thus, concludes the defendant, there is a gap in the evidence of a defect in the battery causing the explosion. It relies heavily upon Prentice Packing &amp; Storage Co. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 5 Wn.2d 144, 106 P.2d 314 (1940) as stating rules of circumstantial evidence which bar plaintiff's recovery in the present case for failure of proof. In the Prentice case, supra, the suit was brought due to the bursting of an ammonia pipe in a cold storage plant. The insurance policy limited plaintiff's right of recovery to losses caused by the pressure of the refrigerant and excluded all other causes. Two witnesses evolved the theory that due to some inherent or acquired flaw in the metal pipe a microscopic crack had developed. They further testified that if this was the case such a rupture would manifest itself by a telltale leakage of ammonia. There was no evidence of a leakage of ammonia; therefore, there could be no inference that a crack existed. The court said there was a missing *485 link in the evidence as there was no evidence of a defect in the pipe. The court then held that such a lack of evidence could not be overcome by an assumption of a condition necessary to establish the cause of action without any evidence to support the assumed fact. This is not the present case. Here there is positive testimony by the plaintiff of the care taken by him to avoid an outside spark, that he was aware of the danger of explosion, that welding equipment, torches and fire were always kept away from batteries, and that no employee of Lipsett Steel had lit a cigarette in the vicinity of the batteries when either exploded. [3] The defendant seems to argue that the burden is cast upon the plaintiff to exclude all probable or possible causes of ignition other than a source inside the battery in developing his case, for it states in its brief: It is the law that the plaintiff must establish with reasonable certainty a manufacturing defect as a cause of the accident in order for him to recover damages from the defendant. In attempting so to do, if the evidence shows that the injury is equally or else with reasonable certainty attributable to other probable causes, he must also exclude such other causes. But in so doing he is not compelled to meet conjecture or mere possibilities with proof to the contrary. Kantonen v. Braley Motor Co., 176 Wash. 577, 30 P.2d 245 (1934); Sommer v. Yakima Motor Coach Co., 174 Wash. 638, 645, 26 P.2d 92 (1933). In the Sommer case, supra, it was argued by the appellants that However, this court did not agree with such a contention concerning burden of proof and said at 645: In the present case the record does not disclose any probable cause other than that testified to by the plaintiff's experts. Concededly, witness Miller testified that in his opinion the explosion was not caused internally and he also testified that the source of a battery explosion "can come from a number of different places. Externally it can come from a spark, cigarette, static electricity. Internally it can come from a spark." However, defendant's counsel never propounded to his expert a hypothetical question describing the physical facts as testified to by the plaintiff and elicit an answer that in those circumstances the ignition from outside sources was the probable cause of the accident. If believed, the plaintiff's evidence does show that some possible external sources of the ignition are ruled out. The only external source which defendant suggests as perhaps causing the ignition is static electricity and the record indicates it has no more substantiation than a mere possibility which requires no rebuttal by the plaintiff. Upon the physical facts presented by the evidence, the question of producing cause resolved itself into a conflict between expert opinions. We are satisfied that there was substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court. The judgment is affirmed. FINLEY, C.J., HUNTER and HAMILTON, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 429 P.2d 220. [] Judge Barnett is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution.