Sunday, November 10, 2013

Giles v. City of New Haven case brief

Giles v. City of New Haven case brief summary
636 A.2d 1335 (1994)

CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff, an elevator operator, filed a negligence action against defendant 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 the elevator installer. The elevator operator challenged the order of the appellate court (Connecticut), which reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

CASE FACTS
The elevator operator was injured when an elevator he was operating fell. The facts indicated that the elevator installer installed the elevator 61 years prior to the accident. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the elevator installer and the appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

DISCUSSION
  • The court affirmed finding that under the principles of res ipsa loquitur the issue of whether the elevator's negligence was the cause of the elevator operator's injuries should have been submitted to the jury. 
  • The court reasoned that the elevator operator had produced sufficient evidence at trial from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that the elevator installer was negligent for failing to inspect, repair and maintain the compensation chain that broke and caused the elevator to fall. 
  • Evidence was presented that although the elevator was routinely inspected, part of the inspection did not include the compensation chain.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the order that reversed a directed verdict in favor of the elevator installer and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of whether the elevator installer was liable under the theory of negligence for the injuries the elevator operator sustained when an elevator he was operating fell.

Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...