Opinion ID: 1248685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of the Batteries and Timing of the Malfunction

Text: In his deposition, plaintiff indicated that he was not certain whether he put the batteries into the lantern correctly but that he knew which end of a battery was the positive end and, based on his experience, assumed he placed them in the lantern correctly. Q. Did you notice whether you put them all in correctly or did you not pay any attention to that? A. No, I always pay attention to that because I know the side with the dimples is always your positive side on a battery. And that was towards your plus on the device you're installing it in. Q. As youand when did you notice that? When you were putting the batteries in or taking them out? A. What was that? Q. Notice that you had all the batteries in the right way. A. I don't even think I really looked to notice, to say honestly. Q. Just assume you'd done it right? A. Yeah, yeah, I've put so many batteries in and out of things over the years with raising kids and everything. Q. So I take it after you put them in there and the light wasn't bright enough, you didn't double check to make sure they were all in right. A. I can't really say for sure that I did or not. Defendant argues that plaintiff's assumption that he placed the batteries into the lantern correctly is fatal to his claim because it does not constitute substantial evidence necessary to survive a motion for summary judgment. We note that neither plaintiff nor defendant presented evidence as to whether the lantern would illuminate at all if one or more batteries were inserted backward. Despite this deficiency in the record, we believe plaintiff presented sufficient additional circumstantial evidence to support his assumption that he positioned the batteries correctly. He testified that he read the instructions accompanying the lantern relating to placement of the batteries in the lantern and knew that inserting them backwards could be dangerous because the current isn't flowing [in] the direction that the batteries would accept. He also testified that he was familiar with handling batteries through his work installing fire alarms and security systems, usually working with batteries a couple times a week. When asked if he was familiar with procedures for disposing of batteries, he responded affirmatively, stating: This was more my caution than anything. I always wore a pair of gloves when I took the old batteries out because a lot of times they are corroded from age and we always took them back to the office where we had a pallet that they recycled. .... ... I didn't want to touch a battery that was damaged or leaking or anything[.] .... ... [P]eople used to kid me because I'd go get my gloves. In addition, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Pearson, who observed that plaintiff [i]n his job as an installer of security systems,... had gained knowledge of battery installation and associated hazards, precautions in use, and remedial action to take in case of exposure. .... ... I believe [plaintiff's] actions were that of a reasonable person. In his job he did wear gloves to protect his skin from chemical contact. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff and drawing all inferences in his favor, we hold this evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact such that a reasonable person might find that plaintiff put the batteries to their ordinary use when he was injured. As to the timing of the malfunction, plaintiff presented evidence that he removed the batteries in question from their packaging and tried them out in his new Coleman lantern. Despite this minimal usage, two batteries leaked almost immediately. Telzrow, defendant's only deposition witness, noted that the batteries in question were manufactured in August 1995 and agreed that they were unusually new, stating, In this particular case [plaintiff] got very fresh batteries. Accordingly, the malfunction did not occur some extended period of time after the batteries were made or after plaintiff first obtained the product, nor did it occur after prolonged or stressful use of the product. Instead, the failure happened shortly after plaintiff purchased the batteries and did no more than test them briefly.