GILES V. CITY OF NEW HAVEN, 636 A.2d 1335 (1994) CASE BRIEF

GILES V. CITY OF NEW HAVEN

636 A.2d 1335 (1994)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Giles (P), elevator operator, filed a negligence action against City (D), elevator installer, to recover injuries he sustained when the elevator fell. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment and directed a verdict in favor of D. D challenged the order of the appellate court (Connecticut), which reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

FACTS: P was an elevator operator for one of the three elevators in the Powell Building. On the day in question the elevator she was operating was ascending from the first floor to the twelfth floor when its compensation chain became hooked on a rail bracket located on the wall of the elevator shaft. P was not able to control the movement of the chain from the interior of the cab. Once hooked, the chain then tightened up and broke free from two bolts securing it to the underside of the cab. The cab began to shudder and shake, and P struck her head and shoulder against the walls of the cab. The chain then fell to the bottom of the elevator shaft with a loud crash. P fearing for her safety, reversed the direction of the elevator as it was approaching the twelfth floor. She directed the elevator to the nearest floor, where she jumped from the cab sustaining additional injuries. Otis (D) had a longstanding exclusive contract with the building owner to maintain and inspect the elevator and its component parts. The elevator was installed by the D approximately sixty-one years before the accident. D's maintenance supervisor, testified that the accident was caused by the compensation chain's becoming hooked on a rail bracket in the elevator shaft due to excessive sway of the chain and that neither inspection nor testing of the compensation chain was part of that routine inspection. The bolts that held the compensation chain to the underside of the elevator cab were never changed, and no one other than D touched the compensation chain or the bolts. P sued D and D claimed that P could not invoke res ipsa loquitur because D did not have exclusive control over the equipment. The trial court granted a directed verdict. P appealed and the Appellate Court reversed and then D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner