Blasetti v. Schindler Elevator Corporation

Background

Gabriella Blasetti alleged that she tripped and fell while exiting a misleveled elevator on the seventh floor of Montefiore Medical Center at about 7:00 a.m. on March 24, 2021. After the fall, she observed that the elevator floor was not level with the hospital floor and estimated a difference of three to four inches. Schindler Elevator Corporation was the company responsible for servicing the hospital’s elevators.

Schindler’s maintenance agreement required at least weekly scheduled inspections, including checks of elevator leveling and components that could affect leveling. The record showed multiple maintenance visits before the accident, but it did not establish that the inspections occurred as frequently as the agreement required. The elevator had also failed various government and annual inspections in earlier years, although it passed inspections shortly before and after the accident. There were no documented prior instances of misleveling, and Blasetti testified that she did not know of earlier problems with the elevator.

Both sides offered expert testimony. Blasetti’s expert, Patrick A. Carrajat, opined that an elevator normally should not mislevel by more than one-half inch without negligent maintenance, inspection, or repair. Schindler’s expert, Jon Halpern, opined that the elevator had been maintained in accordance with industry standards and that an elevator could mislevel even when properly maintained.

Schindler’s Motion

Schindler moved for summary judgment only on liability. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the case’s outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Schindler argued that Blasetti could not prove liability either under ordinary negligence principles or under res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine that can allow a jury to infer negligence from the nature of an accident even without direct proof of what the defendant did.

Ordinary Negligence

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury caused by the breach. An elevator maintenance company may be liable for failing to correct a condition it knew about or for failing to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition it should have found.

The court held that Schindler made the required initial showing for summary judgment. The elevator passed a government inspection twelve days before the accident, passed its annual inspection less than a month afterward, and had undergone a routine visual inspection nine days before the accident. The record also lacked evidence that Schindler had actual notice of the misleveling or that the condition existed long enough, and was visible enough, to establish constructive notice—that is, notice the company should legally be treated as having had.

Blasetti pointed to the lack of detailed records showing that Schindler performed the required weekly inspections and to the elevator’s history of failed inspections. The court concluded that this evidence did not overcome the evidence that the elevator appeared to function properly close in time to the accident or show that Schindler knew or should have known about the defect. The court therefore granted Schindler’s motion for summary judgment as to Blasetti’s claim under a traditional negligence theory.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

The court reached a different result on res ipsa loquitur. Under New York law, a plaintiff seeking to use this doctrine must show that the event ordinarily does not happen without negligence, that the instrumentality causing the event was within the defendant’s exclusive control, and that the plaintiff did not voluntarily cause or contribute to the event.

The court rejected Schindler’s argument that the possibility of a non-negligent cause automatically defeated the claim. A plaintiff does not have to eliminate every other possible cause. Instead, the evidence must provide a rational basis for concluding that the injury was more likely than not caused by the defendant’s negligence.

The court found that Blasetti’s evidence met that standard sufficiently to survive summary judgment. Her expert linked the possible causes of misleveling to components ordinarily subject to maintenance and inspection, and opined that an elevator normally would not mislevel by more than one-half inch without negligence. The court also accepted, for purposes of the motion, her evidence that the elevator was misleveled by three to four inches. Schindler’s contrary expert testimony created a genuine factual dispute rather than resolving the issue in Schindler’s favor.

The court also rejected Schindler’s argument that Blasetti contributed to the accident by failing to look down as she exited. It held that a properly functioning elevator should not require passengers to study the floor to exit safely. The relevant question was whether Blasetti did something that affected the elevator and caused the misleveling, and Schindler offered no evidence suggesting that she did so.

Disposition

The court denied Schindler’s motion for summary judgment as to the negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur, leaving that theory for further proceedings. It granted the motion as to the traditional negligence theory. The court also denied as moot Schindler’s request for oral argument and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 46 and 61.