Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 28 May 1987 |
| Citation | 70 N.Y.2d 621,518 N.Y.S.2d 776,512 N.E.2d 297 |
| Parties | , 512 N.E.2d 297 Julius EBANKS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 118 A.D.2d 363, 504 N.Y.S.2d 640, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
Plaintiff--a securities clerk employed in downtown Manhattan--left for work on a rainy morning in March 1980, wearing a pair of soft rubber overshoes. Upon leaving the subway train at the Bowling Green Station, and in order to reach the street, he stepped onto an escalator owned, operated and maintained by defendant, the New York City Transit Authority. As the escalator ascended, plaintiff heard a rumbling sound and felt the step on which he stood vibrating. Somewhere between the bottom landing and the midpoint, his left foot had become caught in a gap between the escalator step and sidewall; he then looked down and noticed the gap, which he estimated was "a couple of inches." Frightened and unable to dislodge his foot, plaintiff rode the escalator to the top, where he was thrown onto his left hip, suffering a fractured hip and related injuries.
In this action to recover for damages against the Transit Authority, plaintiff alleged that his injuries were the result of defendant's negligent operation and maintenance of the escalator. At trial, in addition to plaintiff's own testimony, an engineer testified that the clearance between the escalator steps and sidewalls must have exceeded the City's building code and industry standards of three eighths of an inch, "otherwise the shoe couldn't have gotten into that space." In addition, the engineer said, the rumbling could not have happened "unless there was some defect in the driving apparatus of the escalator" and that this "could not happen if the escalator had been kept in the state of proper maintenance." For defendant, a Transit Authority maintenance supervisor testified that some clearance between the escalator steps and sidewalls--up to one-quarter inch--is necessary to permit the steps to move freely. A two-inch gap could occur, he asserted, only "if somebody got something caught in it like a hand truck". It could not happen through normal use; "it would have to be an act of vandalism." Defendant further established that the escalator was maintained and inspected on three occasions during the week before the accident. Inspection of the escalator immediately after the accident revealed no gap.
Over defendant's objection, the court charged the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, instructing the jury that if it found that "there was a gap into which his shoe or foot became lodged * * * in the manner that he said, you may infer the defendant negligently maintained the escalator in question." The jury returned a verdict of $100,000, apportioning the fault at 25% against plaintiff and 75% against defendant. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages, and otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ugaz v. American Airlines, Inc., 07-23205-CIV.
...button is not locked, so anyone near the escalator could turn it off if they chose to do so. See Ebanks v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 70 N.Y.2d 621, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 512 N.E.2d 297, 298 (1987) (mem.) (finding that evidence did not adequately refute the possibility that the [injury-causing] e......
-
Condoleo v. Guangzhou Jindo Container Co.
...v. St. Francis Hosp. , 89 N.Y.2d 489, 494, 655 N.Y.S.2d 844, 846, 678 N.E.2d 456 (1997) ; Ebanks v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 70 N.Y.2d 621, 623, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 777, 512 N.E.2d 297 (1987) ; Dermatossian v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 67 N.Y.2d 219, 226, 492 N.E.2d 1200, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784, 788 (19......
-
Hawkins v. Brooklyn-Caledonian Hosp.
...agent was not necessarily in full control of the instrumentality that caused the injury (see, e.g., Ebanks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 70 N.Y.2d 621, 623, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 512 N.E.2d 297; Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784, 492 N.E.2d 1200; Feblot v. N......
-
Looney v. Macy's Inc., 16-CV-04814 (DG) (MMH)
...itself indicates that the escalator at issue was subject to "heavy usage." Macy's’ Ex. T at 53; see also Pl.’s 56.1 ¶ 64. Ebanks v. New York City Transit Authority is particularly instructive on the issue of exclusive control in escalator accident cases. 70 N.Y.2d 621, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 512......