Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1966 |
| Citation | 218 N.E.2d 480,7 Ohio App.2d 41 |
| Parties | , 36 O.O.2d 95 NORMAN, Appellant, v. THOMAS EMERY'S SONS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Hoover, Beall & Eichel, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Cincinnati, for appellee Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc.
Brumleve, DeCamp & Wood, Cincinnati, for appellee Westinghouse Electric Corp.
In this appeal on questions of law, appellant, plaintiff below assigns as error the action of the trial court in granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of each defendant below, to wit, Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
The judgment entries recite merely that the motions were heard upon the pleadings, the deposition of plaintiff, answers to interrogatories and memoranda, and upon consideration of all of which the court found the motion well taken and granted same.
Defendant Emery is owner of the Carew Tower, and in that building established and maintains an observation area where, for a fee, the public may view the panorama presented from that vantage point; access to the observation area is provided by an automatic elevator which shuttles solely between the forty-fifth floor of the building and the observation area.
Defendant Westinghouse manufactured, installed and maintains under a service contract with defendant Emery the elevator providing access to the observation tower.
Plaintiff, together with his eleven year old son, having patronized the observation tower, boarded the elevator at the observation level for descent to the forty-fifth floor. At the moment of boarding there were already numerous passengers in the car, and other passengers crowding from the rear of plaintiff to become passengers on this particular descent caused plaintiff to stand facing the rear of the car with his hand on the shoulders of his son and to lean forward so that no part of his body would come in contact with the automatic closing elevator door or doors, as the case might be. At the end of its descent, the elevator stopped somewhat below the level of the forty-fifth floor. On the automatic opening of the door or doors, the surge of the crowd within pushing against plaintiff caused him to make his exit backward, his heel caught on the difference of the level between the floor of the elevator and the level of the forty-fifth floor of the building, and he suffered a fall producing the injuries of which he complains.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that the elevator was automatic, unattended, and unfit for the purpose intended, and that defendants were negligent in failing to properly maintain such elevator in such a condition that it would stop in a position level with the floor of the building, and in failing to adequately supervise the operation of such elevator.
No demurrer was filed to the petition-defendant Emery simply denying for want of knowledge the happening set forth in the petition and denying any negligence at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...156 (La.Ct.App.1980); Bryan v. Otis Elevator Co., 2 N.C.App. 593, 163 S.E.2d 534, 536-37 (1968); Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 36 O.O.2d 95, 218 N.E.2d 480, 482 (1966). We find the reasoning of the New York, Nevada, Florida and Pennsylvania courts to be most persuas......
-
Johns Hopkins v. Correia
...higher degree of care in performing the function of transporting people from one floor to another.'"); Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 218 N.E.2d 480, 482 (1966) ("[A] passenger elevator is classified as a common carrier so that the duty owed to the passengers [on an ......
-
Rosell v. ESCO
...and Gray, The Law of Torts, Sec. 16.5 (1986); Otis Elevator Co. v. Seale, 334 F.2d 928 (5th Cir.1964); Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 218 N.E.2d 480 (1966); Ward v. City National Bank & Trust Co., 379 S.W.2d 614 (Mo.1964); Otis Elevator Co. v. Embert, 198 Md. 585, 84......
-
Lowrey v. Montgomery Kone, Inc.
...8. Some courts that have applied the common carrier doctrine to elevator maintenance companies are Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc., 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 218 N.E.2d 480, 482 (1966), and Wyatt v. Otis Elevator Co., 921 F.2d 1224 (11th Cir.1991) (applying Alabama law). Some courts that have r......