Miller v. SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION
| Decision Date | 04 September 2003 |
| Citation | 763 N.Y.S.2d 826,308 A.D.2d 312 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | PAULETTE MILLER, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Appellant. |
Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of the alleged malfunction of an elevator exclusively maintained by defendant. Plaintiff claims that, after she entered the elevator on the first floor and pressed the button for the basement, the elevator dropped suddenly, causing her to fall. The certified elevator mechanic employed by defendant who responded to plaintiff's call for help found that the elevator was stopped about three feet above the basement level, and that the emergency stop switch had been manually activated. The mechanic testified that, about an hour after the incident, he tested the elevator and found that it was functioning properly in all respects and required no repairs.
In opposing defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and did not offer any expert evidence contradicting the finding of defendant's mechanic that the elevator was free of defect immediately after the accident. In response to defendant's contention that plaintiff caused her own mishap by activating the emergency stop switch, plaintiff denied that she had activated the switch "prior to the crash." The IAS court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which may be invoked against a defendant that exclusively maintained an allegedly malfunctioning elevator (see Rodriguez v Serge El. Co., 99 NY2d 587 [2003]), allows the factfinder to infer negligence from the mere happening of an event where the plaintiff presents evidence (1) that the occurrence would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, (2) that the injury was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant, and (3) that no act or negligence on the plaintiff's part contributed to the happening of the event (see e.g. States v Lourdes Hosp., 100 NY2d 208). On this record, plaintiff is entitled to invoke the doctrine based on her testimony that the elevator began falling when she pushed the button for the basement, which testimony must be treated as true on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Although defendant presented competent, albeit conclusory, evidence that the elevator was not malfunctioning immediately after the incident, pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ezzard v. One E. River Place Realty Co.
...should be given to a jury to decide (States, 100 N.Y.2d at 212, 762 N.Y.S.2d 1, 792 N.E.2d 151 ; Miller v. Schindler El. Corp., 308 A.D.3d 312, 763 N.Y.S.2d 826 [1st Dept.2003] ). Res ipsa loquitur does not create a presumption of negligence; rather it is a rule of circumstantial evidence t......
-
Akter v. Denis P. Mullarkey, LLC
...testimony to the effect that a malfunction actually occurred, is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact." Miller v Schindler EL Corp., 308 A.D.2d 312, 313 (1st Dep't 2003); see Stewart v. World El. Co., 84 A.D.3d 491, 496 (1st Dep't 2011). Golden, notably, has offered no explanation f......
-
Gutierrez v. Broad Fin. Ctr. LLC
...of res ipsa loquitur. See Cortes v. Central El., Inc., 45 AD3d 323, 845 N.Y.S.2d 259 (1st Dep't 2007); Miller v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 308 AD2d 312, 763 N.Y.S.2d 826 (1st Dep't 2003); Sookraj v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 279 AD2d 371, 724 N.Y.S.2d 579 (1st Dep't 2001). Even though res i......
-
Carlos v. 2 Broadway Ground Lease Tr.
...by Plaintiff is a physical or mechanical impossibility, or one more likely than not to happen (Barkley, 149 A.D.3d 74; see Miller, 308 A.D.2d at 313; Williams Swissotel N.Y, 152 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1989]; Rogers, 32 N.Y.2d at 557-559). Also, the evidence submitted raises questions of fact ......