Bond v. Otis Elevator Co.

Texas Court of Civil Appeals · Torts

Tortsres ipsa loquiturdamagesexcessive verdictsremittiturjoint controlelevator accidentgeneral finding of negligence

Facts

Doris Bond was injured when an elevator stopped suddenly and began bouncing, causing her to fall and injure her left ankle. She underwent surgery, was hospitalized for twenty-nine days, wore casts for weeks, and continued to experience pain, limping, limitations on standing and working, and emotional distress related to elevators and moving machinery. Medical testimony showed that her ankle fractures had healed well but that she had at least some continuing residual disability and pain, especially with activity. The jury awarded her $31,254 in damages.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against Otis Elevator Company in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on res ipsa loquitur, and whether the jury's damages award of $31,254 was excessive.

Rule

Where the Supreme Court has determined that res ipsa loquitur applies because the instrumentality was under joint control and the occurrence is one that does not ordinarily happen without negligence, a jury finding that the defendant negligently failed to properly maintain the instrumentality is treated as a general finding of negligence and is supported by the inference permitted by the doctrine. If the appellate court concludes from the record as a whole that the damages award is excessive, it may require a remittitur to the maximum amount justified by the evidence and otherwise remand for a new trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dallas, Maya Torres was riding an escalator in an office tower when it suddenly lurched backward and jolted to a stop, throwing her onto the steps. The building owner and Summit Vertical Transit, a fictional maintenance contractor, both shared responsibility for operation and upkeep, and the evidence showed this type of malfunction ordinarily does not happen without negligence.

At trial, the jury found that Summit Vertical Transit negligently failed to properly maintain the escalator. Summit argues on appeal that the verdict cannot stand because the plaintiff proved no specific negligent act. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority treated a finding that the defendant negligently failed to properly maintain the instrumentality as a general finding of negligence, not a specific one, once res ipsa loquitur was fully applicable. Because the instrumentality was under joint control and the mishap was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the negligence finding is supported by the permissible inference even without proof of a specific negligent act. (Derived from Bond v. Otis Elevator Co. (n.d.).)