Negligent Elevator Misleveling not Established by Res Ipsa Loquitur; Plaintiff’s Reliance on Expert Report Enough to Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment
The plaintiff sustained physical injuries while pulling a heavy cart of medical supplies out of an elevator when the elevator came to a stop but the floor of the elevator was misaligned with the building floor. The defendant maintained the elevator.
The plaintiff produced an expert report, stating the defendant was negligent in failing to have the elevator leveled and the defendant should have checked all the elevator mechanisms that controlled leveling during more frequent maintenance visits.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence the elevator was in a defective or dangerous condition that would be discoverable by reasonable inspection. The defendant also argued the plaintiff’s expert opinions were inadmissible as they did not include an analysis or means of scientific proof.
The federal district court reasoned, per Pennsylvania law:
“A defendant contractor may be liable to a user of an elevator where (1) the defendant undertook to inspect the elevator at regular intervals; (2) the elevator was in a defective or dangerous condition at the time of the plaintiff’s injury; and (3) such defective or dangerous condition was discoverable by reasonable inspection.”
Citing Pennsylvania law, the federal district court held that elevator misleveling cannot be shown by res ipsa loquitur as misleveling could occur in the absence of negligence. The court noted, while the plaintiff did not argue the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the issue was included in the plaintiff’s expert opinion, that an elevator “should not mislevel under normal preventative measures.”
The federal court found the defendant’s motion for summary judgement “was essentially wrapped around a Daubert issue” and the reliability of the plaintiff’s expert’s methodology must be tested before it can be known whether the expert report is admissible. The court reasoned, if the expert’s report is admissible, then summary judgment is not appropriate; however, if the expert report fails the Daubert test, the defendant will likely be entitled to summary judgment.
The court found the plaintiff, “in relying upon the report of an apparently qualified expert, has done enough to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact which preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
As such, the federal district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but held that a future motion could result in a different ruling depending on the outcome of any Daubert motion.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.