Haag v. Harris

THE COURT.

This is an action for personal injuries, sustained by plaintiff as a result of a fall into the elevator shaft of defendants’ apartment building. Plaintiff testified that he entered the building as a guest of one of the tenants, opened the .elevator door and fell into the shaft. The elevator was automatic and self-operating, and the doors had locks which were intended to make it impossible both to move the elevator from any floor until the door was closed, and to open the door when the elevator was not at the floor. Various witnesses for defendant, including an inspector of the elevator company, and a safety engineer of the Industrial Accident Commission, testified that they inspected the locking device after the accident and found it in satisfactory condition. The inspector of the elevator company also testified that he had tested it two days before the accident, and found it in good order. Plaintiff submitted instructions embracing the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur.

The lower court refused to give them, and instead instructed the jury that under the facts there was no presumption of negligence. The jury brought in a verdict for defendants, and the court gave judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.

It is apparent that the record presents a proper ease for the application of the doctrine of

res ipsa loquitur.

The elevator was under the control of the defendants; in the ordinary course of things the accident would not have happened if due care had been used by those in control of it; and

[110]

plaintiff had no means of explaining how the elevator was not at the floor at which the door opened. There are several decisions holding the doctrine applicable to exactly this type of ease, namely, injuries sustained through a fall into the shaft of an automatic self-operating elevator, in an apartment or hotel.

(Class

v.

Young Women’s Christian Assn.,

47 Ohio App. 128 [191 N. E. 102]