Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs. by Nat. Realty, 75 N.Y.2d 680 (1990)
A property owner can be indemnified by a contractor for damages arising from negligent maintenance, even if the owner was also independently negligent in a separate aspect of the incident, provided the contractor had a contractual duty to maintain the premises.
Summary
Teresa Mas was injured while escaping an elevator stuck between floors in her apartment building. She sued the building owner, managing agent, and elevator maintenance company (Otis). The jury found the owner 10% liable for failing to provide assistance and Otis 85% liable for negligent maintenance. The court granted the owner indemnification from Otis for the 85% of the verdict attributable to negligent maintenance. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the owner’s independent negligence in failing to respond to the alarm did not preclude indemnification from Otis for its failure to properly maintain the elevator, a duty Otis had contractually assumed.
Facts
Teresa Mas was riding an elevator in her apartment building when it malfunctioned, shooting past her floor to the top of the building and then sliding down to stop between the 25th and 26th floors. The elevator’s alarm bell went unanswered for 20 minutes. Mas, terrified, eventually jumped from the elevator, injuring herself. Otis Elevator Company had a contract with the building’s managing agent to maintain the elevator.
Procedural History
Mas sued Two Bridges Associates (owner), Grenadier Realty Corporation (managing agent), and Otis Elevator Company for negligence. A jury found in favor of Mas, apportioning fault. The trial court granted the owner judgment on its cross-claim against Otis for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed. Otis appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the emergency doctrine.
2. Whether the building owner was entitled to indemnification from Otis for the portion of the verdict attributable to negligent elevator maintenance, given the owner’s separate negligence in failing to respond to the elevator alarm.
Holding
1. Yes, because the emergency was not dissipated by the lapse of time, and the question was properly submitted to the jury.
2. Yes, because Otis contractually assumed the duty to maintain the elevator, and the owner’s independent negligence on a separate theory did not preclude indemnification for Otis’s breach of its maintenance duty.
Court’s Reasoning
The court rejected Otis’s argument that the emergency instruction was improper, finding the jury could reasonably conclude the emergency continued during Mas’s confinement. The court found that the circumstances remained precarious throughout the incident.
Regarding indemnification, the court emphasized Otis’s broad contractual responsibility for elevator maintenance. It stated, “[Otis] assumed full responsibility for (1) keeping the equipment properly adjusted, (2) using all reasonable care to maintain the elevator equipment in proper and safe operating condition, (3) regularly and systematically examining, adjusting and, if necessary, repairing elevator parts…” The court reasoned that Otis had undertaken the duty to remove the elevator from service if it had notice of a problem. Therefore, the owner’s awareness of the problem was irrelevant for cross-liability purposes.
The court addressed the novel issue of whether the owner’s separate negligence (failure to respond) precluded indemnification for Otis’s negligent maintenance. It clarified the distinction between contribution and indemnity: contribution involves tortfeasors sharing liability, while indemnity shifts the entire loss to another. Indemnity is appropriate when one party is held liable solely by operation of law or when fairness dictates that one party should bear the entire loss. Quoting Rogers v. Dorchester Assocs., the court noted the owner