Highly technical nature of elevator mechanics requires expert testimony to support plaintiffs’ claims.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were injured when an elevator located in an apartment building malfunctioned. The 8^th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that there was no evidence to place the defendants on prior notice that the elevator had been malfunctioning. Specifically, the plaintiffs offered no evidence to show that the property owner had been aware of any mechanical issues involving the elevator at the time of the incident. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony to show the cause of the malfunction. Due to the highly technical nature of elevator mechanics, the court noted that expert testimony was needed to support the plaintiffs’ claims. Combined, the plaintiffs’ failure to prove prior notice and causation was fatal to their claims.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2017}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}