Weeden v. Armor Elevator Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 21 November 1983 |
Citation | 468 N.Y.S.2d 898,97 A.D.2d 197 |
Parties | Virginia R. WEEDEN, Appellant, v. ARMOR ELEVATOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; The County of Orange, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Owen & Grogan, Goshen (Thomas N. O'Hara, Goshen, of counsel), for appellant.
Mead, Dore & Voute, White Plains (Emanuel Thebner, White Plains, of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
In this negligence action, predicated upon injuries sustained while riding in an automatic elevator which allegedly rose and fell suddenly, plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant. Herein, we consider the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as against the defendant elevator maintenance company.
Similarly, Mr. Smith testified at trial that instead of stopping at the third floor, the elevator "went up, slammed, banged and dropped back down". When the elevator came to rest, approximately one to two feet off level, Mr. Smith picked plaintiff up, opened the door and helped her "climb out". (It is unclear from the testimony adduced at trial whether the elevator improperly leveled above or below the third floor thereby requiring that plaintiff and Mr. Smith climb up or down in order to exit.)
Plaintiff continued working that day but could only perform some of her duties. She did, however, contact a physician that afternoon to make an appointment as she had pains in the back of her neck and in her shoulder and left leg. A compensation report was completed by plaintiff's supervisors the following day since her exclusive remedy against the county, her employer, was limited to workers' compensation (see Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 407, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 372 N.E.2d 560). Thereafter, in February, 1977, plaintiff instituted this action against Armor Elevator Company, Inc. (hereinafter Armor), the manufacturer and sole maintenance company under contract with the county to service elevator number one. Armor, in turn, commenced a third-party action against the county by which it sought indemnity or contribution in the event that it was held liable to plaintiff.
The matter came on for trial in late August and early September of 1981. There was substantial testimony from county employees delineating frequent prior problems associated with elevator number one. For example, the elevator cab would fail to level with the floor, the doors would not open at the appropriate time, and the cab would pass requested floors or stop in between. These ongoing problems were reported to Armor, according to maintenance supervisor Charles White and then building superintendent, Stanford DeGraw.
Armor's service contract with the county provided, inter alia, for periodic visits by Armor to furnish oil and grease and lubricate the elevator equipment, to adjust, repair and replace certain parts where conditions warranted, and to examine safety devices. The contract further required that Armor would respond to calls from the county for any conditions requiring adjustment or repair. Such routine visits were distinguishable from "call backs", which were made in response to specific customer complaints. Normal procedure upon the discovery of an elevator malfunction was for the county building maintenance staff to shut off the power and telephone Armor. The only other "maintenance" function performed by the county was the replacement of fuses, which were located in a separate room on the first floor near the elevator bank. There was conflicting testimony as to whether an out-of-order sign was placed on elevator number one after the incident on May 24, 1976, or whether the elevator remained operational that day. It is also unclear whether or not Armor was immediately notified of the incident.
Robert Ball, elevator mechanic, and Armor's service representative, had been tending the four Orange County Government Center elevators since 1974, two years prior to the incident. It was, he testified, his duty to service the elevators, which would include "general housekeeping as far as cleaning any oil leaks * * * checking the general operation of the elevator, [and] checking contacts". He did not recall any repairs being performed on elevator number one between January 1 and May 24, 1976 or any complaints being received concerning the leveling mechanism prior to the occurrence. Ball's supervisor, Justin Donahoe, an Armor field operations manager, also testified that other than routine visits, there was only one recorded call with respect to elevator number one for attention to an unrelated problem. According to Mr. Ball, the last general service inspection prior to the incident had been on about May 20, 1976, at which time there was no evidence of malfunction. He first learned of the May 24 incident from building superintendent DeGraw during the course of a routine inspection and service call on June 1, 1976. While elevator number one was operating properly at the time, Mr. Ball considered the complaint serious enough to notify his supervisor, who directed that he change the "upleveling section" as a precautionary measure, in the event that the upleveling valve was acting erratically. The witness had not previously changed this mechanism.
In the event the cab were to overrun the third floor, the stop ring would impede any further movement and the cab would remain stationary until a call button for a lower floor was activated.
The up-leveling head, which had been removed by Ball on June 1, 1976, was not produced at trial. Ball explained that after changing the valve head, he had given it to his supervisor, Donahoe. Donahoe testified to the procedure upon his receipt of a removed part. These items are sent to Armor's factory for repair or overhaul. He sent the up-leveling head removed from elevator number one to Armor's Queens plant with others from his catchment area. Because each valve part or head was not distinctly marked, the one from elevator number one could not be traced. The witness assumed that that particular part was rebuilt or repaired and recirculated or scrapped--he did not know.
At the close of trial, a specific request by plaintiff's counsel that the jury be instructed on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as against Armor was denied by Trial Term based (it would appear from the record) on the fact that the pleadings, as amplified by the bill of particulars, did not assert res ipsa loquitur. Trial Term held that the theory at trial had been that of negligence, and that, therefore, this was not a proper case for such a charge.
After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Armor, finding that it had not been negligent in the maintenance of elevator number one. It is from the judgment entered thereon dismissing the complaint that plaintiffs appeal. We reverse and grant a new trial, holding that Trial Term erred in refusing to furnish the jury with appropriate instructions on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Initially, we observe that neither plaintiff's failure to specifically plead res ipsa loquitur nor the allegation of specific acts of negligence, along with a general allegation thereof, by way of the complaint as amplified by the bill of particulars, constitutes a bar to the invocation of res ipsa loquitur where the facts warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...A.D.2d 784, 495 N.Y.S.2d 376, 378 (1985), aff'd, 69 N.Y.2d 623, 511 N.Y.S.2d 227, 503 N.E.2d 692 (1986); Weeden v. Armor Elevator Co., 97 A.D.2d 197, 468 N.Y.S.2d 898, 901-02 (1983); see also Annotation, Evidence of Specific Negligence as Affecting Reliance on Res Ipsa Loquitur, 33 A.L.R.2d......
-
Hawkins v. Brooklyn-Caledonian Hosp.
...loquitur (see, Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., supra; Mack v. Lydia E. Hall Hosp., 121 A.D.2d 431, 503 N.Y.S.2d 131; Weeden v. Armor Elevator Co., 97 A.D.2d 197, 468 N.Y.S.2d 898; Fogal v. Genesee Hosp., 41 A.D.2d 468, 344 N.Y.S.2d 552; see also, Quigley v. Jabbur, 124 A.D.2d 398, 507 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Jappa v. Starrett City, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 30831(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/19/2008)
...that res ipsa loquitur be pled in either the summons and complaint, or in the bill of particulars. In fact, in Weeden v. Armor El. Co., 97 A.D.2d 197, 468 N.Y.S.2d 898, (2ndDept., 1983), the Court held that "neither the plaintiff's failure to specifically plead res ipsa loquitur nor the all......
-
Nikollbibaj v. City of N.Y.
...Corp., 27 A.D.3d 611, 612, 812 N.Y.S.2d 600;see Keyser v. KB Toys, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 713, 714, 918 N.Y.S.2d 134;Weeden v. Armor El. Co., 97 A.D.2d 197, 204, 468 N.Y.S.2d 898). In a res ipsa loquitur case, the jury has great latitude; even when the plaintiff has established a prima facie case ......