Bond v. Otis Elevator Company
388 S.W.2d 681 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply against multiple defendants who are in joint control of an instrumentality, and a building owner's duty to maintain safe elevators is a non-delegable responsibility that cannot be shifted to an independent contractor.
Facts:
- Petitioner Bond was a passenger in an automatic elevator in the Adolphus Tower Building, intending to descend to the lobby floor.
- Almost immediately after Bond entered the elevator on the ninth floor, it descended very rapidly in what was described as a 'free fall'.
- The elevator suddenly stopped and began to bounce violently between the fifth and sixth floors, causing Bond to be thrown to the floor and suffer injuries to her foot and ankle.
- The Adolphus Tower Building had a written contract with Otis Elevator Company which obligated Otis to exclusively maintain the elevators and their operating mechanisms.
- Neither Otis Elevator Company nor the Adolphus Tower Building offered any testimony or explanation for why the elevator fell.
- J.L. Bostick, an employee of Adolphus Tower Building, called Otis Elevator Company immediately after the elevator fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Bond brought a suit for damages against Adolphus Tower Building and Otis Elevator Company in the trial court, relying solely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- A jury found that the elevator was under the exclusive control of Adolphus Tower, that the Building did not fail to use a high degree of care, that the elevator was not under the exclusive control of Otis, that Otis failed to properly inspect and maintain the elevator, that Otis's omission was negligence and a proximate cause of Bond's injuries, and that Otis's acts and omissions were the sole proximate cause.
- The trial court entered judgment jointly and severally against Adolphus Tower and Otis Elevator for Bond, notwithstanding the jury's findings that Adolphus Tower was not negligent and Otis was not in exclusive control of the elevator.
- The trial court also provided that Adolphus Tower have judgment over against Otis for the full amount.
- Adolphus Tower Building and Otis Elevator Company appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause.
- Petitioner Bond, Otis Elevator Company, and Adolphus Tower Building all filed applications for writs of error in the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply when an instrumentality causing injury is under the joint control of multiple defendants, and can a building owner delegate its duty to maintain safe elevators to an independent contractor to avoid liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Justice
Yes, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply against multiple defendants in joint control, and a building owner cannot delegate its fundamental duty to maintain safe elevators. The court affirmed that res ipsa loquitur was applicable because a free-falling elevator is an accident that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, and the facts explaining its cause were peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants. The evidence conclusively showed that the elevator was under the joint control of both Adolphus Tower Building and Otis Elevator Company. Although the contract stated the Building retained possession and management, it also specified that Otis would examine, lubricate, adjust, and repair/replace equipment based on its judgment, demonstrating a clear instance of joint control. The court emphasized that the term 'exclusive control' for res ipsa loquitur does not require control by a single entity, but can apply where there is joint control. Furthermore, the Building's duty to maintain its elevators in a reasonably safe condition for public use is a non-delegable duty, meaning it remains responsible for the negligence of its independent contractor, Otis. Therefore, even without a specific jury finding of negligence against the Building, liability could be predicated on Otis's negligence, and Otis was found negligent in its maintenance, which was the proximate cause of Bond's injuries. The court also found that the trial court was correct in granting the Adolphus Tower Building indemnity from Otis, as its liability was entirely based on Otis's negligence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in scenarios involving multiple defendants, establishing that 'exclusive control' can encompass 'joint control.' This broadens a plaintiff's ability to seek recovery in complex negligence cases where direct evidence of specific wrongdoing is elusive, by allowing an inference of negligence against all jointly responsible parties. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the principle of non-delegable duties, particularly for building owners regarding public safety, ensuring that owners cannot entirely shift liability for essential maintenance to independent contractors. The case also provides a clear example of how indemnity can apply when one party's liability is purely derivative of another's active negligence.
