Santilli v. Otis Elevator Co.

Opinion

STEIN, J.

Guy Santilli, employed by Children’s Hospital, was in the habit of using a freight elevator to reach the hospital’s parking lot. He was injured when the descending door of the elevator struck him on the shoulder as he was pushing the button which caused the door to descend. He brought the instant action against Otis Elevator Company, which had manufactured, installed and maintained the elevator, seeking damages for his injuries on theories of design defect and negligence. The jury returned a verdict finding no design defect in the elevator, but that Santilli’s injuries had been caused by negligence. The jury found Santilli’s damages to be $320,000, and further found that Otis was 60 percent, Santilli himself 30 percent, and Children’s Hospital 10 percent responsible for Santilli’s inju

[212]

ries. Judgment was entered upon the jury’s verdict awarding Santilli damages as against Otis Elevator in the amount of $183,212.50.

1

Otis Elevator appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict and from the order denying its motion for a new trial . . . .

*

We shall affirm the judgment . . . .*

Discussion

*

The Trial Court Did Not Err by Granting Plaintiff’s Motion

in Limine

Excluding Evidence of Postaccident Safety Measures Taken by Children’s Hospital

In the present case Children’s Hospital, not a party to the action,

2

allegedly posted some warnings or took other measures in an attempt to diminish the possibility of similar accidents in the future. Otis Elevator here contends that the trial court should have permitted it to introduce evidence of those remedial measures.

Evidence Code section 1151 (hereafter section 1151) limits the use at trial of evidence of remedial measures such as were taken by Children’s Hospital, providing, “When, after the occurrence of an event, remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.” Otis Elevator, however, argues that the statute has no application to the present case because the statute is relevant only to actions sounding solely in negligence, whereas the present action included theories of strict liability.