DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc.
565 S.E.2d 140, 49 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 116, 355 N.C. 672 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff is not required to prove a specific defect and may establish a prima facie case by presenting circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that the product malfunctioned during ordinary use.
Facts:
- On December 10, 1995, Franklin Roland DeWitt purchased a new Coleman lantern and eight new Eveready 'Energizer' size D batteries.
- DeWitt, who was familiar with battery installation through his occupation, inserted the eight batteries into the lantern.
- He operated the lantern for approximately five minutes, found the light unsatisfactory, and set it aside.
- About 24 hours later, DeWitt held the lantern between his ankles for several minutes while removing the batteries.
- During removal, he noticed a 'slimy' fluid on some of the batteries and the lantern but initially dismissed it as condensation.
- Shortly after, DeWitt felt a tingling on his ankle, noticed redness, and felt that his sock was moist, which he initially attributed to an insect bite or perspiration.
- While driving home, the sensation on his ankle progressed to a burn, and upon removing his sock, he discovered the heel of his foot was black.
- DeWitt was subsequently diagnosed at a hospital with third- and fourth-degree alkaline chemical burns caused by potassium hydroxide that had leaked from the batteries.
Procedural Posture:
- Franklin Roland DeWitt filed a products liability action against Eveready Battery Company, Inc. in the Superior Court, Iredell County (trial court).
- Eveready filed a motion for summary judgment on all of DeWitt's claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Eveready.
- DeWitt, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the claims of inadequate warning, inadequate design, and negligence, but reversed summary judgment on the claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability for manufacturing defective batteries.
- Eveready, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on the dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does circumstantial evidence that a product malfunctioned during ordinary use, without proof of a specific defect, create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?
Opinions:
Majority - Edmunds, Justice.
Yes. A plaintiff is not required to prove a specific defect to establish a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and can meet their burden of proof by producing adequate circumstantial evidence of a defect. The court formally adopted the 'malfunction theory,' joining a majority of jurisdictions. The court reasoned that inferring a defect is permissible when evidence shows a product failed during ordinary use shortly after purchase. The court established a non-exhaustive, multi-factor test to guide trial courts in assessing such circumstantial evidence. Applying this test, the court found DeWitt presented sufficient evidence: the new batteries malfunctioned almost immediately; an expert identified possible manufacturing defects; DeWitt was experienced in handling batteries; defendant's witness admitted the company had previously produced leaky batteries; and defendant's own simulation of misuse did not cause a leak. This cumulative evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the batteries were defective, making summary judgment for the defendant improper.
Concurring - Parker, Justice.
Justice Parker concurred in the result only. The concurrence states that under existing North Carolina law, the forecast of expert evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was sufficient on its own to raise a genuine issue of material fact about whether the batteries were defective at the time of sale. This approach suggests that the adoption of the broader 'malfunction theory' and its multi-factor test by the majority may not have been necessary to reverse the summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the 'malfunction theory' or 'indeterminate defect theory' in North Carolina for product liability claims based on breach of implied warranty of merchantability. By providing a multi-factor framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence, the decision lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs. It allows plaintiffs to proceed to trial without needing direct evidence of a specific defect, which is often difficult or impossible to obtain, particularly when the product is destroyed or damaged. This precedent makes it easier for consumers to hold manufacturers accountable for products that fail under normal operating conditions.
