 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarti v. Unico Properties2/18/2003
Concurring: Mary K. Becker, William W. Baker
UNPUBLISHED
In this personal injury case arising from an elevator accident, Janine Sarti appeals the trial court's summary judgment orders dismissing her claims against the building manager and the elevator maintenance company. We affirm the trial court because Sarti failed to present specific, nonconclusory facts showing that that the defendants were negligent in their operation and maintenance of the elevator that caused her injuries.
FACTS
Janine Sarti sued Unico Properties, Inc. and Otis Elevator Co. for injuries she sustained when entering an elevator. Unico manages the parking garage where the accident occurred. Unico contracted with Otis for the routine maintenance and emergency servicing of the elevators.
The accident occurred on December 4, 1997. Sarti was entering one of the elevators to the parking garage when the doors closed on her head and torso, causing her to black out momentarily and suffer sudden pain. After the impact, the elevator doors reopened, Sarti entered the elevator and continued traveling to her car, which was parked in the parking garage.
Sarti reported the accident to Unico on December 9, 1997. On that same day, Unico reported the incident to Otis and an Otis service mechanic, Martin Jackson, went to investigate the cause of the accident. Jackson's investigation revealed that the elevator's door retraction system was operating properly at that time. Jackson stated in his affidavit that he had performed routine maintenance on the elevator during the week of November 27, 1997, and that the electronic proximity detectors and the light ray detectors were both on and working properly then. The electronic proximity detectors are designed to sense objects blocking the doors and to cause the doors to retract. The light ray detector emits light beams that must be intact before the door will close. When he checked the door on December 9, 1997, Jackson tried to simulate the accident by reproducing the impact Sarti had reported, but he could not do so. The doors reopened when the electronic proximity detectors were triggered. After testing the electronic proximity detectors, Jackson observed that the light ray detector had been turned off, so he turned it back on.
After Otis's expert, Ray Hays, inspected the elevator in question and reviewed the elevator's maintenance records, he concluded that there was nothing wrong with the electronic proximity detectors. In his affidavit, he opined that the light ray detector was not necessary for the safe operation of the door reversal system because it was a 'redundant' device, adding that the electronic detector alone satisfied the applicable elevator codes. Otis's records for the elevator showed that there had been no callbacks (service-related complaints) about the elevator door during 1997 other than for Sarti's accident.
In response to Otis's and Unico's motions for summary judgment, Sarti presented evidence of her injuries, the manner in which the accident took place, and an affidavit from an expert elevator consultant, Vernon P. Keller. In his affidavit, Keller stated that Sarti's accident was caused because the electronic detector was not operating properly. He stated that '{t}he Otis detector was not intended to be installed with light ray devices' and asserted that Otis experienced problems with its electronic detectors because of excessive humidity and static electricity and it remedied these problems by adjusting the sensitivity of the electronic detectors. Regarding the door retraction devices, he concluded that 'the presence of a light ray device is evidence that the detector does not operate a
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|