Opinion ID: 1248685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Similar Accidents Involving the Same Product

Text: During his deposition, Telzrow acknowledged that defendant has made defective batteries in the past: Q. Is it fair to say then that batteries could leak without being abused? A. Sure. You can make a defective battery. Q. And is it also fair to say that [defendant] has made defective batteries which have gone out for sale to the public? A. Sure. Telzrow added that [c]omplaints are generally [that] the product leaked, and described a fairly serious problem related to the venting mechanism in the past where batteries manufactured by defendant had leaked within six to nine months after defendant shipped the batteries to a retailer. In addition, during Telzrow's deposition, plaintiff's attorney presented numerous documents obtained from defendant that related to various stages of the making of an Energizer size D alkaline battery. Several of these documents showed instances where defendant's design and manufacturing specifications had not been met, with battery failure or leakage being possible results. As to these documents, Telzrow stated: Q. Am I correct in also stating that there are instances where those measurements fall outside of [defendant's] established range? A. That's correct. Q. And sincetaking into consideration that those tests are random samples, is it conceivable that a battery, a D cell battery, could leave this plant with components that exceed the measurement guidelines that have been established by [defendant]? A. That's correct. We hold this evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact such that a reasonable mind might conclude that there is a possibility of other incidents similar to that which befell plaintiff.