Swanson v. Schindler Elevator Corporation

Background

Nichelle Swanson alleged that she was injured on September 28, 2018, when she entered an elevator at Lincoln Hospital and tripped because the elevator car was approximately 2 to 3 inches higher than the lobby floor. A hospital employee found Swanson on the floor and observed that the elevator and lobby floors were not level. Schindler maintained the hospital’s elevators, including through an on-site mechanic who performed preventive maintenance on the elevator six days before the accident.

Swanson alleged ordinary negligence and relied alternatively on res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine that can allow a fact-finder to infer negligence from an accident even when the plaintiff cannot identify exactly what caused it. Swanson also offered testimony from Dr. Ashwin Malhotra, who concluded that the fall caused head and spine injuries and injuries to her knees. Schindler offered opposing elevator and medical expert opinions.

Summary judgment on the claims

The court granted Schindler’s motion for summary judgment on Swanson’s traditional negligence claim. Under New York law, that claim required evidence that Schindler owed Swanson a duty, breached it, caused her injuries, and caused damages. The court concluded that Schindler made an initial showing that the elevator had been functioning properly before and after the accident, including through the mechanic’s inspection six days earlier.

The court then concluded that Swanson had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Schindler created the defect or had actual or constructive notice of it. The Department of Buildings violations cited by Swanson concerned other conditions and did not identify problems with the elevator floor, the floor-to-landing area, or related mechanisms. The court also found that testimony that the hospital’s elevators were “always” uneven did not show that Schindler knew about the specific problem. The elevator expert’s opinion that a lack of detailed maintenance records created an issue of fact was, without more, speculation rather than evidence of notice.

The court denied summary judgment on the res ipsa loquitur claim. Schindler did not dispute that it had exclusive control of the elevators. The court found genuine disputes about the other two elements: whether an elevator misleveling large enough to trip someone ordinarily occurs without negligence, and whether Swanson voluntarily contributed to the accident. The court relied on decisions from New York’s First Department and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit indicating that elevator malfunctions may support such an inference. It also found that the parties had not established the elevator’s precise malfunction or cause, and that disputed evidence existed about whether Swanson’s prior medical conditions were current or contributed to her fall.

Expert testimony

The court denied Schindler’s motion to exclude Dr. Malhotra’s testimony about Swanson’s head and spine injuries. Although the court identified weaknesses in his report and his delayed disclosure of supporting publications, it found that his opinions about those injuries were based on an examination, symptom comparisons, medical records, and his neurological experience. The court treated the challenges to those opinions as matters for cross-examination and competing evidence rather than grounds for exclusion.

The court granted Schindler’s motion to exclude Dr. Malhotra’s testimony about Swanson’s knee injuries. It found that his opinions about those injuries were outside his specialized training and were unsupported by adequate causal analysis, comparison with prior diagnoses and symptoms, or medical literature.

Other orders and disposition

The court reserved judgment on whether Swanson should be sanctioned for producing Dr. Malhotra’s publication list three months after discovery closed and two months after Schindler filed its motion. The court directed Swanson to submit a memorandum addressing sanctions by March 15, 2024. It also ordered the parties to submit a proposed joint pretrial order and related materials within thirty days, directed them to discuss settlement and a possible settlement conference, and terminated the two motions on the docket.

The final disposition was that Schindler’s summary-judgment motion was granted with respect to Swanson’s traditional negligence claim and otherwise denied. Schindler’s motion to preclude Dr. Malhotra’s testimony was granted with respect to his opinions on Swanson’s knee injuries and denied with respect to his opinions on her head and spine injuries.