vent cap was damaged. Rutkoski testified that most people think "a battery is a big heavy strong thing and you can hit it with a hammer and it won't damage it." From this evidence a reasonable jury could conclude that the danger created by pounding on the vent caps was a hidden danger, not obvious to the ordinary consumer. A reasonable jury could also conclude that the misuse of this product was foreseeable. Both Rutkoski and Runyan testified to the difficulty of getting the vent caps on and their knowledge that users frequently banged on the caps to get them to fit. Exide argues that the battery did warn the user of the danger of explosive gases. However, a general warning is not necessarily adequate to warn of a spe cific danger. See Kozlowski, 87 Wis. 2d at 900, 275 N.W.2d at 923 (<HOLDING>). Based on Run-yan's testimony, a reasonable
holding that sanctions were appropriate where the subpoena was served for the improper purpose of exerting pressure on the witnesses not to testify holding dismissal of petition was erroneous and that the defendant failed to demonstrate entitlement to official immunity where the plaintiff averred that the defendant a public employee negligently injured him while operating a high pressure hose holding that a nursing home violated  48325c in part because it failed to provide a pressure relief mattress that had already been identified as needed in the residents care plan holding that it was a jury question whether a general warning to avoid excessive pressure was adequate to reveal the danger of an exploding safety ring at a high pressure setting holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence