HARRY BURNS, APPELLANT,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, ETC., AND 100 LINCOLN ROAD COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harry Burns appeals summary judgment in favor of Otis Elevator Company and the building owner after an elevator door closed on his shoulders, causing a rotator cuff injury. The court reverses, finding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a jury inference of negligence when an elevator injures a passenger in a manner that would not ordinarily occur absent negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to elevator cases and permits jury inference of negligence when the injury (elevator door closing with sufficient force to tear a rotator cuff) is one that does not ordinarily occur absent negligence. Summary judgment was improper because a factual question remains for the jury to determine whether defendants breached their duty of care.
[1] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when an injury is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant and the…
[2] The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is particularly applicable in elevator accident cases.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that 'provides an in[jured] plaintiff with a common-sense inference of negligence where direct proof of negligence is wanting.'”
Establishes the foundational purpose and utility of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in cases lacking direct evidence of negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns was injured when service elevator doors closed on his shoulders in the 100 Lincoln Road Building, tearing his shoulder rotator cuff. The buildin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Control cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Harry Burns appeals the entry of a final summary judgment in favor of Otis Elevator Company, Inc., [Otis] and 100 Lincoln Road Company [Lincoln]. Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist, we reverse.
Harry Burns was injured when the doors to the service elevator in the 100 Lincoln Road Building closed on his shoulders. The 100 Lincoln Road Building is owned by Lincoln; the elevator was installed and maintained by Otis. Burns sued Lincoln and Otis seeking to recover damages he contends resulted from negligent maintenance of the elevator. Lincoln and Otis filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion.
Burns contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes the entry of summary judgment. Res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary rule that “provides an in jured plaintiff with a common-sense inference of negligence where direct proof of negligence is wanting.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla.1978); Marrero v. Goldsmith, 486 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1986).
Res ipsa loquitur permits the trier of fact to draw an inference of negligence when the following criteria are met: 1) the instrumentality involved was within the exclusive control of the defendant at the time of the injury;1 and 2) the injury is one which would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Hughes Supply; Coaster Amusement Co. v. Smith, 141 Fla. 845, 194 So. 336 (1940).
If those conditions are established, actual or constructive notice to defendant of any defect in the instrumentality is immaterial. See Coaster. “[T]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is particularly applicable in elevator cab cases.” Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 408 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982); see also Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988).
The threshold inquiry is whether the accident is one which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Hughes Supply, 358 So. 2d at 1342.
Applying those principles to the case before us, we find that the closing of an elevator door on the shoulder of a passenger as he attempts to enter the cab and the exertion of pressure sufficient to tear the passenger’s shoulder rotator cuff are events that raise a presumption that a malfunction occurred in the cab. To prevail at trial, plaintiff must still present sufficient evidence, beyond that of the accident itself, from which the jury may infer that the accident would not have occurred but for the defendants’ breach of due care. Roff-man v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 522 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Otis Elevator Co. v. Chambliss, 511 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Valens v. Otis Elevator Co., 482 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, a factual question remains for jury determination regardless of “whether or not plaintiff has adduced expert testimony.” See, e.g., Williams v. Hollywood Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
. The parties do not raise the issue of exclusive control of the elevator. Thus, we do not reach this issue; however, we note that the existence of a maintenance contract does not relieve the owner of the elevator from liability. See Otis Elevator Co. v. Chambliss, 511 So. 2d 412, 414 n. 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 408 So. 2d 659, 660 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); § 399.02(5)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
McDOUGALD v. Perry, 716 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1998)…. 2d at 1259 (citing Goodyear). The court explained that, “[t]he mere fact that an accident occurs does not support the application of the doctrine.” Id. In support of the Second District’s conclusion, respondents cite to Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the Third District stated: To prevail at trial, plaintiff must still present sufficient evidence, beyond that of the accident itself, from which the jury may infer that the accident would not have occurred but for the d…
-
Schindler Corp. v. Timm Ross, 625 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…mined 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. 2d 21 (Fla.3d DCA 1989), res ipsa does not apply to a mislevel-ing case. Hafferman v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 653 F.Supp. 423, 433 (D.D.C.1986);2 Bernstein v. Highland Assocs., Inc., 1 Mass. App. 132, 294 N.E. 2d 576 (1973)3, cited in support of affirma…
-
Szilagyi v. N. Fla. Hotel Corp., 610 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…ny, Hoelscher testified that he believed the elevator was properly maintained. That Mr. Szilagyi may have sustained injuries when the elevator’s speed changed does not, of itself, prove negligence on Appellee’s part. See Burns v. Otis Elevator Co., 550 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA1989) (reversing final summary judgment in favor of elevator owner/servicer in action for negligent maintenance, but noting that plaintiff/passenger must present sufficient evidence, beyond that of the accident alone, from which the jury…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1978)
- Marrero v. Malcolm G. Goldsmith, M.D., 486 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1986)
- Coaster Amusement Co. v. Flo Smith, 141 Fla. 845 (Fla. 1940)
- Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 408 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Lelia Chambliss and Avon Chambliss, 511 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Theodora Valens v. Otis Elevator Co., 482 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Roffman v. Sears, 522 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Trepte Constr. Co., Inc. v. Kelley, 541 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Read v. Wyken, 541 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)