Kleinert v. Kimball Elevator Co.
1995 Utah App. LEXIS 115, 275 Utah Adv. Rep. 44, 905 P.2d 297 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of an elevator is considered a common carrier, owing the highest degree of care to its passengers, and a directed verdict is improper if the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the owner's actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition.
Facts:
- In April 1984, Deanna Kleinert entered an elevator on the sixth floor of a building owned and operated by the Boyer Company.
- Kleinert became trapped inside the elevator for about forty minutes while it intermittently and erratically rose and fell.
- During this incident, Kleinert was thrown about the elevator, striking her head, arms, and legs against the walls, doors, and handrail.
- Kleinert was finally able to escape by prying the doors open and jumping to the floor below.
- Prior to Kleinert's incident, the elevators in the Boyer Company's building experienced numerous problems, including 'yo-yoing,' abrupt stops from tripped governor switches, and people getting stuck.
- The Boyer Company was aware of these operational problems, having been informed by a Kimball Elevator Company district manager and repairman, and through service logs and reports from other individuals.
Procedural Posture:
- Deanna Kleinert filed a strict products liability claim against Kimball Elevator Company and a negligence claim against the Boyer Company in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court granted both Kimball Elevator Company's and the Boyer Company's motions for summary judgment.
- Kleinert appealed the summary judgment rulings to the Utah Court of Appeals (appellant Kleinert, appellees Kimball and Boyer Company).
- The Utah Court of Appeals (Kleinert I) affirmed the summary judgment for Kimball Elevator Company but reversed the summary judgment for the Boyer Company, remanding the negligence claim against Boyer for further proceedings.
- On remand, after Kleinert presented her case-in-chief against the Boyer Company, the trial court granted the Boyer Company's motion for a directed verdict.
- Kleinert appealed the directed verdict to the Utah Court of Appeals (appellant Kleinert, appellee Boyer Company).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict for the Boyer Company by concluding there was no evidence it knew or reasonably should have known of dangerous conditions in its elevators? 2) Should elevator owners be held to the heightened 'common carrier' standard of care for the safety of their passengers?
Opinions:
Majority - Bench, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in granting the Boyer Company’s motion for a directed verdict, as Kleinert submitted evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and yes, elevator owners should be held to the common-carrier standard of care. The court held that a directed verdict cannot be sustained if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is a reasonable basis in the evidence and inferences for a judgment in their favor. Kleinert presented extensive testimonial and documentary evidence—including service logs, testimony from Kimball Elevator Company employees (Brent Russon, Edward Williams), and other witnesses—detailing a history of elevator malfunctions and indicating the Boyer Company's awareness of these dangerous conditions prior to the incident. This evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Boyer Company 'knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, a dangerous condition existed and... had sufficient time to take corrective action.' Furthermore, the court concluded that elevator owners are required to exercise the standard of care applicable to common carriers. It referenced the Utah Supreme Court's dictum in Lamb v. B & B Amusements Corp. and precedents from other jurisdictions. The court reasoned that elevators function like common carriers by transporting people who place their trust in the owner, surrender control of their safety, and face risks comparable to horizontal public transport, thus justifying the highest degree of care. The court declined to address Kleinert's judicial bias claim because it was raised for the first time on appeal and not properly presented to the trial court via affidavit under Rule 63(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Analysis:
This case significantly impacts premises liability law in Utah by explicitly classifying elevator owners as common carriers, thereby elevating their duty of care to the highest standard. By reversing the directed verdict, the court reinforced the principle that a case should proceed to a jury when a plaintiff presents any reasonable basis of evidence supporting their claim, particularly concerning a property owner's knowledge of dangerous conditions. This ruling enhances passenger safety by increasing the legal responsibility of building owners operating elevators, making it easier for injured parties to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to hold building owners to a higher standard when elevator malfunctions cause injury.
