Fernandez v. Otis El. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2004
• Docket Number: 2174.
• Citation: 772 N.Y.S.2d 14,4 A.D.3d 69,2004 NY Slip Op 00480
• Parties: JOSE FERNANDEZ, Respondent, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

4 A.D.3d 69

772 N.Y.S.2d 14

2004 NY Slip Op 00480

JOSE FERNANDEZ, Respondent, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

2174.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

February 3, 2004.

Law Office of Laurence J. Sass and Shandell, Blitz, Blitz & Bookson, LLP (Laurence J. Sass and Arthur Blitz of counsel), for respondent.

Geringer & Dolan LLP (John A. McCarthy and Pauline A. Mason of counsel), for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MAZZARELLI, J.

Plaintiff, a janitor employed by the College of Mount Saint Vincent (the college), was injured when he fell down an elevator shaft in one of the college's dormitories. The elevator had become stuck between the second and third floors of the building. Just prior to the accident, plaintiff alleges he was attempting to close a hoistway door in the shaft of the second floor of the building. Defendant Otis Elevator Company (Otis) asserts that plaintiff was trying to climb out of the elevator by wiggling through an eight-inch opening at his feet.

The elevator was installed in 1923 and had a collapsible, manually operated car gate attached to the elevator car. Each floor also had a manual hoistway door with two separate locks. To open the hoistway door from inside the elevator, the car gate had to first be opened. A bar on the inside of the hoistway door then had to be pulled down, to unlock and allow the door to slide open. It is uncontested that this elevator did not have a toe guard¹ or a door restrictor.²

It is also undisputed that the elevator stalled because a "contact" within a device called a reverse phase relay (RPR) malfunctioned. The RPR is part of the elevator controller, and is designed to insure that the correct amount of voltage is supplied to the elevator. When the contact failed, it precluded the flow of electricity, preventing the elevator from moving. The RPR on the elevator at the time of the incident was part of the original 1923 installation, and had never been replaced.

Plaintiff brought this action against Otis and 6300 Riverdale Owner Corp. The claims against Otis allege common-law negligence, strict products liability and failure to warn. 6300 Riverdale Owner Corp. did not appear in the action, and Otis moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion, Otis presented its contract with the college, a type of agreement commonly known as an "oil, grease and survey" contract. The agreement required that Otis regularly conduct service examinations, clean the elevator, lubricate certain components, and make minor adjustments. The replacement of the RPR was not part of Otis's contractual duties. Moreover, the contract did not require Otis to install additional safety devices such as a toe guard.

In further support of the motion, Otis proffered a number of affidavits and excerpts from deposition testimony showing that it had recommended that the college update the elevators. These establish that in 1990, Otis informed the college that the elevator controller needed to be replaced. Otis also submitted a copy of a 1996 proposal for modernization of a number of the elevators at the college. Included too was an affidavit from one of Otis's inspectors stating that on June 13, 2000 he specifically told his supervisor that the RPR in this elevator needed to be replaced. In another affidavit, an Otis maintenance supervisor swore that he discussed both the modernization proposal and the replacement of the RPR with the current and former facilities managers at the college, but that the college would not budget the money needed to modernize the elevators.

In another affidavit, an Otis mechanic recounted that on August 11, 2000, three days before this accident, he responded to a service call that the elevator was stuck between floors. The mechanic adjusted the RPR and cleaned the contacts on it, so that the elevator could operate. He also noted that the RPR was old, worn out, and had to be replaced. He stated that he reported to the director of facilities that he was not sure how long his repair of the old RPR would last, and that the director approved ordering a new RPR. He estimated that it would take about a week to get a new RPR, but that in the meantime, the director of facilities indicated that the college needed the elevator to remain in service.

In the order appealed, the IAS court denied that portion of Otis's summary judgment motion which sought dismissal of the negligence and products liability claims, and granted defendant dismissal of plaintiff's claim for failure to warn. The court found that an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff intentionally slid out of the elevator, or whether he inadvertently fell, precluded summary resolution of the common-law negligence claim. With respect to the products liability claim, the court held that Otis had not made a prima facie showing that its parts were not defective in 1923, and that there was an issue as to whether plaintiff had misused the product by consciously bypassing built-in safety features.

Because we find that Otis had no duty to plaintiff, we dismiss the common-law negligence claim. In addition, because the elevator was not defective at the time of its manufacture in 1923, we dismiss plaintiff's products liability claim.

The dispositive issue as to plaintiff's common-law negligence claim is whether Otis, by entering into an elevator maintenance contract with the college, owed plaintiff a duty of care (see Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579, 585-586 [1994]; Eaves Brooks Costume Co. v Y.B.H. Realty Corp., 76 NY2d 220, 226-227 [1990]). The definition of the existence and scope of an alleged tortfeasor's duty is a question of law for the courts, involving consideration of matters including public policy and contractual assumptions of responsibility (Palka, supra at 585).

While "a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party" (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002] [citation omitted]), the Court of Appeals has identified three...