Wolpert v. Washington Square Office Center, 89-167
| Decision Date | 07 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-167,89-167 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2579,555 So.2d 382 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2579 Michael WOLPERT, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON SQUARE OFFICE CENTER, a Florida partnership and Miami Elevator Company, a Florida Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Courtney & Webb, Daniels and Hicks and Patrice A. Talisman, Miami, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for Washington Square Office Center.
Lanza, O'Connor, Armstrong, Sinclair & Tunstall, Coral Gables and Catherine B. Parks, Miami, for Miami Elevator Co.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.
During presentation of the plaintiff's case at trial, the evidence showed that an automatic elevator, owned and maintained by the defendants, had a momentary interruption of normal operation then dropped, unexplainedly, three floors coming to an abrupt stop approximately two feet below the first-floor level. There was also testimony that the sudden stop caused the plaintiff injuries which were not immediately realized, or caused a delayed aggravation of a preexisting osteoarthritic condition. Relying on a res ipsa loquitur theory the plaintiff rested his case. The trial court entered a directed verdict for the defendants reasoning that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. We reverse.
On similar facts we held, in Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 408 So.2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 418 So.2d 1281 (Fla.1982), that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was particularly applicable in elevator cab cases. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328 D comment c at 158 (1968) ); W. Prosser, W. Keeton Torts § 39 (5th ed.1984)(res ipsa finds common application in the case of falling elevators).
The trial court was incorrect in ruling that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of the defendants' negligence. Res ipsa is a type of circumstantial evidence from which a jury may reasonably infer negligence based on the mere occurrence of the event. It allows the plaintiff to rest his case on circumstantial evidence. As an evidentiary tool, res ipsa relieves a tort plaintiff, in limited circumstances, of the burden to prove ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schindler Corp. v. Ross
...Other decisions have likewise determined that, unlike, for example, falling elevator cab cases, e.g., Wolpert v. Washington Square Office Ctr., 555 So.2d 382 (Fla.3d DCA 1989), or those in which an elevator door has suddenly closed on the passenger, e.g., Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So.......
-
Butcher v. Miami Elevator Co., Inc., 89-1004
...1st DCA 1982); Eckert v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 334 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Affirmed. 1 See Wolpert v. Washington Square Office Center, 555 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (as an evidentiary tool, res ipsa relieves a tort plaintiff in limited circumstances of the burden to prove ......
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rogers, WAL-MART
...that Mrs. Rogers had proven her case by direct evidence, thereby greatly reducing Mrs. Rogers' burden. See Wolpert v. Washington Square Office Center, 555 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (res ipsa loquitur eliminates the plaintiff's burden in a tort case to prove the defendant's negligence by ......
-
Mays v. Alpine Centre L.C. & Montgomery Kone, Inc
...1992) (jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur should be given in case where elevator abruptly stopped); Wolpert v. Washington Square Office Ctr. 555 So.2d 382, 383 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989) (res ipsa loquitur applied in case where elevator suddenly dropped three In Brewster,our supreme court addr......