Otis Elevator Company v. Seale
Decision Date | 09 September 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 20718.,20718. |
Citation | 334 F.2d 928 |
Parties | OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. Fay Ann SEALE, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for appellant, John F. Tooley, Jr., New Orleans, La., of counsel.
Herbert W. Christenberry, Jr., Kent Satterlee, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before BROWN, MOORE* and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
This personal injury action was brought by plaintiff Seale (appellee) against Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., liability insurer of Winchester Apartments, Inc., (insurer) and Otis Elevator Company, (Otis) the manufacturer, installer and maintenance contractor for the elevators in the Warwick Apartments Building in New Orleans.1 Both defendants denied negligence; the insurer cross-claimed against Otis; Otis pleaded its maintenance contract with Winchester, and unsuccessfully moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional amount. The jury rendered a special verdict and found for the plaintiff and the insurer, but against Otis, in the amount of $3,500.00.2 The facts are rather simple. The plaintiff claimed that on January 21, 1959, she entered one of the two elevators in the Warwick on the eleventh floor and pressed the first floor button. Thereupon, says plaintiff, the lights went off and the elevator plunged rapidly from the eleventh floor to a point between the eighth and ninth floors, where it came to a sudden halt causing her to be thrown to the floor and injured.
On this appeal, Otis complains principally of three alleged errors. First, it contends that the court erred in giving the following charge to the jury as to the duty of Otis to a passenger in the elevator:
In view of the contract to service the elevator and the understanding between Otis and the owner that no one was to perform any work or repairs on it except Otis, we find no error in the charge, and consider it a correct statement of the law of Louisiana. Ross v. Sisters of Charity of Incarnate Word, 141 La. 601, 75 So. 425, L.R.A.1917F, 260 (1917); Vallette v. Maison Blanche Co., 29 So.2d 528 (L.App.Orl.1947).
Otis' second chief contention is that the court erred in charging the jury that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applied to it. The rule does not apply, says Otis, because the Louisiana cases require that control of the offending device be in the defendant. We disagree. In Miller v. Otis, 154 So.2d 629 (La.Ct. of App.) (1963), the court did refuse to apply the doctrine in a case similar to this one. As we read that case, however, the refusal to apply the doctrine was not because of a lack of control by the defendant, but because of the real possibility, developed on the trial, that other forces could have caused the elevator malfunction. The court there stated:
The Louisiana case of Day v. National U. S. Radiator Corp., (La.Ct. of App. 1959) 117 So.2d 104, indicates that "control" is no longer a decisive criterion for the application of the doctrine in that State:
"Control by defendant appears no longer to be an absolute requirement provided the other factors usually required are present, chiefly among which are the absence of knowledge on the part of the injured party concerning the cause of the incident and the superior ability of defendant to explain the occurrence."
The court reasoned that if control is a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine, that in cases where the defendant is bound by contract with the party who does have actual control, to inspect, service and maintain, etc., the defendant also has control:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johns Hopkins v. Correia
...of care [is] required of the operator of elevators as in the case of other common carriers of passengers. . . ."); Otis Elevator Co. v. Seale, 334 F.2d 928, 929 (5th Cir.1964) (applying Louisiana law) (the duty of an owner of a passenger elevator "as to protecting the passengers in his elev......
-
Rosell v. ESCO
...See, Prosser & Keeton on Torts Sec. 34 (5th ed. 1984); Harper, James 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., 3......
-
Weeden v. Armor Elevator Co., Inc.
...to a passenger warrants an inference of some negligence on the part of the defendant maintenance company (see, e.g.,Otis Elevator Co. v. Seale, 334 F.2d 928 (5th Cir.); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Street, 327 So.2d 113 (Fla.App.); American Elevator Co. v. Briscoe, 93 Nev. 665, 572 P.2d 534......
-
Broussard v. State
...141 La. 601, 603, 75 So. 425 (1917). See also Campbell v. Otis Elevator Co., 808 F. 2d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 1987); Otis Elevator Co. v. Seale, 334 F. 2d 928, 929 (5th Cir. 1964). Seegenerally 3 HARPER, JAMES, AND GRAY ON TORTS § 16.4, p. 570 n. 14 (3d ed. 2007).7 Under this heightened standar......