You are here: / / Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care...
,

Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care to Elevator User

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action in negligence against a company with a contract to maintain an elevator.  The elevator escape door and debris fell on plaintiff.  The court explained that the existence of a contract did not rule out that the company owed a duty of care to the plaintiff:

” Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party'” … . “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” … Exceptions to this general rule exist “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launch[e]s a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties[;] and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” … .

Here, [defendant] failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating that no questions of fact existed as whether it failed to exercise reasonable care while repairing the subject elevator and whether it thereby launched a force or instrument of harm that caused the accident… . Dautaj v Alliance El Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 06657, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

You might also like
Building Owner Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based Upon Tracked In Water (Inclement Weather)–Tenant Ordinarily Does Not Have a Duty of Care Re: Common Areas
IN A JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION, IF THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE ASSETS THE ONLY OPTION IS LIQUIDATION AT A PUBLIC SALE (SECOND DEPT).
Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot Not Demonstrated to Have Been Permeated by Fraud
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF THE VENOGRAM USED TO DIAGNOSE A BLOCKAGE IN A VEIN IN DEFENDANT’S LEG; PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
“Special Errand” Exception to the “Going and Coming” Rule Applied—Workers’ Compensation Claim Is Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy
PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF EVENTS BEYOND WALKING TOWARD THE BUS AT A BUS STOP; SHE SUFFERED A CRUSHED FOOT; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Conveyance Was For Convenience (Getting a Loan) and Was Not a Gift—Property... Defendant May Be Liable for Obstruction in Municipal Right of Way