Murphy v. Montgomery Elevator Co.
828 P.2d 584, 1992 Wash. App. LEXIS 159, 65 Wash. App. 112 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An elevator maintenance company operating under a limited service contract is held to a standard of ordinary care, not the heightened duty of a common carrier. Furthermore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply against such a company where the building owner retains control and authority over repairs, as the element of 'exclusive control' is not met.
Facts:
- Humana Hospital had a limited service contract with Montgomery Elevator Company for the maintenance of its elevators.
- Under the contract, Montgomery performed routine service twice a month.
- Humana Hospital retained ownership of the elevators and was required to authorize any additional repairs, labor, or parts needed beyond the routine service.
- Humana's director of engineering periodically inspected Montgomery's work and the elevator facilities.
- Margaret Murphy, an employee at Humana Hospital, was injured on March 30, 1987.
- Murphy alleged that as she was stepping out of an elevator, it dropped two to four inches, causing her to fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Murphy sued Montgomery Elevator Company in a Washington state trial court for personal injuries.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Montgomery Elevator.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- Murphy, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
- On appeal, Murphy argued that the trial court erred in refusing to provide her proposed jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur and the common carrier standard of care.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply against an elevator maintenance company with a limited service contract, and is that company held to the highest standard of care applicable to a common carrier?
Opinions:
Majority - Petrich, C.J.
No. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable, and the company is not held to the standard of care of a common carrier. For res ipsa loquitur to apply, the defendant must have exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury. Here, Montgomery did not have exclusive control because Humana Hospital owned the elevator, retained oversight, and had to authorize any non-routine repairs. The failure of Humana to exercise its discretion did not transfer exclusive control to Montgomery. Regarding the standard of care, the heightened duty of a common carrier applies to owners and operators who furnish elevators for public use, not to third-party maintenance contractors with limited service contracts. The appropriate standard is ordinary care, which requires the conduct of a reasonably careful person under the same or similar circumstances, a standard which sufficiently accounts for the dangerous nature of elevators.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of tort liability for third-party maintenance contractors in Washington, distinguishing their duties from those of property owners. By refusing to apply the common carrier standard, the court prevents an expansion of heightened liability to entities that do not have full operational control. The court's strict interpretation of the 'exclusive control' element for res ipsa loquitur makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail against service contractors without proving a specific negligent act, thereby protecting contractors from liability inferred solely from the occurrence of an accident.
