Rogers v. Dorchester Associates, 32 N.Y.2d 553 (1973)

An elevator maintenance company can be held liable for negligence based on circumstantial evidence of prior malfunctions and its exclusive maintenance contract, allowing a jury to infer a failure to properly inspect and repair the elevator.

Summary

Adele Rogers, a tenant, was injured by an elevator door in her apartment building. She sued the building owner, manager, and Otis Elevator Company, which had a maintenance contract. Evidence showed prior door malfunctions. The jury found all defendants liable, but the appellate division dismissed the claim against Otis. The Court of Appeals reinstated the judgment against Otis, holding that the prior malfunctions, combined with Otis’s exclusive maintenance contract, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to infer negligence in inspection and repair. Because Otis had the sole duty for maintenance, the owner and manager were entitled to indemnification from Otis.

Facts

Adele Rogers, a 71-year-old tenant, was injured by an automatic elevator door in her apartment building in Manhattan. The building was owned by Milstein Associates and managed by Milford Management Corp. Otis Elevator Company had a written agreement with Milford to service all elevators in the building. Rogers testified that the elevator door began to close as she entered, and despite touching the rubber safety edge, the door continued closing and knocked her down, resulting in pelvic fractures. Another tenant testified to frequent malfunctions of the door in the six months prior to the accident. Building employees were instructed to shut down malfunctioning elevators and call Otis, giving Otis exclusive control over elevator maintenance.

Procedural History

Rogers sued Milstein Associates (owner), Milford Management Corp. (manager), and Otis Elevator Company for negligence. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of $80,000 against all defendants. The owner and manager’s cross-claim against Otis was dismissed by the trial court. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by dismissing the complaint against Otis. Rogers, Milstein, and Milford appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether evidence of prior elevator door malfunctions, coupled with the elevator maintenance company’s undertaking to perform all inspection and maintenance, was sufficient to permit the jury to infer negligence by the elevator company.

2. Whether the building owner and manager are entitled to indemnification from the elevator maintenance company for their liability to the plaintiff.

Holding

1. Yes, because circumstantial evidence of prior malfunctions and the elevator company’s exclusive maintenance contract provided a sufficient basis for the jury to infer negligence.

2. Yes, because the elevator company assumed the full duty to maintain the elevator, and the owner and manager’s liability arose solely from their nondelegable duty, which was breached due to the elevator company’s negligence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that an elevator company that agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found. Even without direct evidence of negligence or application of res ipsa loquitur, circumstantial evidence can allow a jury to infer negligence. The court noted that Otis had undertaken, for a substantial fee, to handle exclusively all maintenance on the elevator. “There was evidence that the elevator door malfunctioned on this occasion and on prior occasions. It was Otis’ procedure to have an employee examine each of the nine elevators in the building, including the doors, at least two or three times a week. The door was designed to retract at the slightest pressure, yet there was evidence accepted by the jury that it did not stop, but struck plaintiff with sufficient force to knock her to the floor.” The court distinguished Koch v. Otis Elevator Co., where no cause was shown for the elevator malfunction. Here, there was evidence of prior similar malfunctions. Regarding indemnification, the court found that the owner and manager’s liability arose solely from their nondelegable duty, while Otis voluntarily undertook all maintenance and inspection. Consequently, the court reasoned, the negligence must have been attributable solely to Otis’s acts or omissions. The Court cited Beinhocker v. Barnes Development Corp., for the proposition that “between the owner and the company, the company assumed the full duty to maintain the elevator and the owner had no functions to perform, as between it and the elevator company.” The court also stated that a clause in the maintenance agreement purporting to limit Otis’s liability for consequential damages was void under General Obligations Law § 5-323. Finally, the court clarified that the rule of apportionment in Dole v. Dow Chem. Co. does not apply when one party is vicariously liable and the other is directly responsible for the negligence.