## Facts

- Franklin Roland DeWitt bought a Coleman lantern and eight Eveready “Energizer” D-cell alkaline batteries from a retail store in North Carolina in December 1995.
- DeWitt installed the batteries according to the lantern’s instructions and used the lantern briefly.
- The next day, DeWitt decided to return the lantern and began removing the batteries.
- During removal, DeWitt noticed a “slimy” fluid on at least one battery and on the base of the lantern.
- DeWitt soon felt a tingling sensation on his ankle and saw redness and moisture on his sock.
- He later developed a painful, non-healing ankle wound and scarring, which he attributed to contact with leaking battery fluid.
- DeWitt sued Eveready for negligence and breach of warranty, alleging the batteries were defective and unreasonably dangerous and that warnings were inadequate.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Eveready on all claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed, characterizing DeWitt’s expert proof as speculative.
- DeWitt’s expert, a chemical engineer with battery experience, opined that the leakage was most consistent with one or more manufacturing- or design-related defects (e.g., seal failure or contamination) within the manufacturer’s control and not consistent with consumer misuse, though he did not identify a single precise defect.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s expert evidence created a genuine issue of material fact on product defect and proximate causation sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether, in a complex products case, an expert must identify one specific defect as the probable cause, or may instead testify that several manufacturer-attributable defects could have caused the malfunction while reasonably excluding other causes.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held summary judgment for Eveready was improper.
- The Court concluded the plaintiff’s expert testimony and supporting circumstantial evidence were sufficient to create a triable issue on defect and causation.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; the plaintiff need only show a genuine dispute of material fact, not prove the claim.
- In products-liability cases, causation and defect may be shown by circumstantial evidence and expert opinion.
- Expert testimony is not incompetent merely because it relies partly on assumptions or hypothetical facts, so long as those assumptions are supported by record evidence.
- An expert need not identify a single, specific defect to survive summary judgment where the product’s malfunction is consistent with several possible defects, each attributable to the manufacturer, and other reasonable causes (such as misuse) are sufficiently ruled out.
- Courts should distinguish unsupported conjecture from expert opinion grounded in technical knowledge, accepted methodology, and the physical evidence of the incident.

## Conclusion

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that, in a complex product-malfunction case, a plaintiff may defeat summary judgment with expert testimony identifying multiple plausible manufacturer-caused defects and reasonably excluding alternative causes, even without pinpointing a single specific defect; DeWitt’s evidence created a jury question on defect and proximate causation.


DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 565 S.E.2d 140 (2002)