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
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ VAN FAILED TO YIELD TO APPELLANT’S VEHICLE, WHICH HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN DEFENDANTS’ VAN ATTEMPTED TO MERGE INTO APPELLANT’S LANE; THE DASH CAM VIDEO DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT-DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; APPELLANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
A Police Report of a Vehicle Accident Involving Respondent’s Employee Was Not Sufficient to Alert Respondent to the Facts Underlying Petitioner’s Claim—Petition to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING UNDER GTLF’S SUPERVISION; GTLF HAD HIRED ATRIUM, PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER, TO HANDLE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PAYROLL AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE; PLAINTIFF RECEIVED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM ATRIUM FOR A WORK-RELATED INJURY; GTLF, AS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER, CANNOT BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT).
ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED.
PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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