Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann
334 Md. 231, 638 A.2d 762 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff is precluded from relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur if they introduce direct evidence and expert testimony purporting to furnish a complete explanation of the specific cause of the accident and the defendant's alleged negligence.
Facts:
- Dover Elevator Company manufactured, installed, and exclusively maintained an elevator in an office building leased by IBM.
- On February 2, 1987, David Swann, an IBM employee, was injured when he attempted to board the elevator and stumbled because the elevator car was approximately one foot lower than the floor level.
- At the moment he entered, Swann was conversing with a coworker and was not looking at the level of the elevator car.
- Dover's maintenance records indicated multiple service calls to correct misleveling problems with the same elevator in the months preceding Swann's injury.
- Less than a month before the incident, on January 7, 1987, a Dover mechanic had serviced the elevator for a leveling problem by cleaning and filing electrical contacts designated as 14 and 15.
- Swann's expert witness testified that the misleveling was likely caused by a faulty electrical current from these specific contacts.
- The expert further testified that Dover's mechanic acted negligently by filing the contacts rather than replacing them, which was the proper course of conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- David Swann filed a complaint against Dover Elevator Company and others in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, a trial court.
- Following a jury trial on the negligence claims, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.
- Swann, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the verdict as to Dover Elevator Company (the appellee in that appeal) and affirmed the verdict for the other defendants.
- Dover Elevator Company, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a plaintiff rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish a defendant’s negligence when the plaintiff has also proffered direct expert testimony purporting to furnish a complete explanation of the specific cause of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Chasanow, J.
No. A plaintiff may not rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur if they introduce direct evidence that purports to explain the specific negligence that caused the injury. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence intended for cases where direct evidence of negligence is unavailable, allowing a jury to infer negligence from the nature of the accident itself. Maryland precedent establishes that when a plaintiff undertakes to prove the specific 'details of the happening,' they forego reliance on the doctrine. In this case, Swann's expert witness, Donald Moynihan, provided a 'sufficiently complete explanation' of the accident's cause, specifically identifying faulty electrical contacts and the mechanic's failure to replace them as the negligent act. This moved the case from one of unknown cause to a dispute over a specific theory of negligence, making res ipsa loquitur inapplicable. The court distinguished this from cases where the principal evidence is inaccessible to the plaintiff; here, Swann had full access to maintenance records and expert analysis to build a case based on direct negligence. Furthermore, because the elevator's mechanics are complex and beyond common knowledge, expert testimony was necessary, meaning the jury was asked to rely on an expert's inference of negligence, not its own—a situation distinct from a true res ipsa loquitur case where the 'thing speaks for itself' to a layperson.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional Maryland view that res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine of necessity, not an alternative theory of liability for plaintiffs to fall back on. It clarifies that offering a comprehensive, specific explanation of negligence via expert testimony crosses the line from permissible circumstantial evidence into a direct proof case, thereby precluding a res ipsa instruction. The ruling creates a significant strategic risk for plaintiffs in complex cases, as they must choose between presenting a detailed theory of negligence that might fail to persuade a jury, or relying on the general inference of res ipsa without providing a specific cause. The decision solidifies the distinction between a jury's common-sense inference of negligence (true res ipsa loquitur) and an expert's reasoned inference of negligence, establishing that the latter does not trigger the former.
Unlock the full brief for Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann