Res Ipsa Loquitor - The Thing Speaks for Itself: Elevator Malfunction Might Preclude Summary Judgment

A common cause of action especially in the personal injury realm is negligence. Typically, to prove a defendant was negligent, and that such negligence caused plaintiff’s injury, four (4) things must be shown: (1) that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) defendant breached that duty; (3) said breach caused the injury; and (4) as a result, the plaintiff sustained damages.

Sometimes, however, a plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant breached a duty of care, but nonetheless sustained damages that deserve compensation. Thus the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor came to fruition. The doctrine, translating from Latin loosely to “the thing speaks for itself” allows a plaintiff to recover for damages the defendant should be responsible, but is unable to prove under the ordinary negligence theory. To apply res ipsa loquitor, the plaintiff must establish three (3) things: (1) the event giving rise to injury is one which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) the thing giving rise to the injury is within the exclusive control of defendant; and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the cause or injury. Once the three elements are established, the jury is permitted – but not required – to presume negligence on the part of the defendant, and determine plaintiff’s damages award.

            Any issue of fact concerning (2) exclusive control of the object giving rise to the injury; and or (3) plaintiff’s contribution or lack thereof, the matter must be submitted to the jury to decide.

In Carter v. New York City Hous. Auth., Plaintiff commenced an action in negligence when an elevator in defendant’s building, closed unexpectedly on her hand as she attempted to exit.  Plaintiff alleges the elevator is in exclusive control of defendant, and defendant alleges that Plaintiff affected the instrumentality involved and therefore contributed to the cause of injury.

The First Department cited an earlier decision that “[e]levator malfunctions are circumstances giving rise to the possible application of res ipsa loquitur to prove negligence”. (Ezzard v One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC, 129 AD3d 159, 163 (1st Dep’t 2015)) and held that the issues of fact as contended by plaintiff and defendant as stated above regarding control and contribution must be decided by the jury, and therefore, defendant did not reach its burden of proving its case as a matter of law.

Carter v. New York Hous. Auth., Slip Op 07722 (1st 2019).

http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_07722.htm