Giles v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceRes ipsa loquiturComparative negligenceDirected verdictres ipsa loquiturcontrolexclusive control

Facts

The plaintiff had operated one of the Powell Building elevators for fourteen years when, during a routine ascent, the elevator’s compensation chain hooked on a rail bracket, tightened, broke free from bolts under the cab, and caused the cab to shudder and shake, injuring her. The defendant had a longstanding exclusive contract with the building owner to inspect and maintain the elevator and its component parts, and no one other than the defendant touched the compensation chain or its bolts. The defendant’s maintenance supervisor testified that routine inspections did not include inspection or testing of the compensation chain, that the chain had to sway far beyond normal to hook on a bracket, and that the chain and U-bolts had not been repaired or replaced for several years. The plaintiff testified that the elevator had been operating normally and that the chain crashed before she reversed direction.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to infer negligence under res ipsa loquitur, so that the trial court should not have directed a verdict for the defendant. More specifically, the question was whether the doctrine could apply despite the plaintiff’s operation of the elevator and possible contributory negligence.

Rule

Res ipsa loquitur applies when the event ordinarily would not occur absent someone's negligence and the evidence permits a reasonable finding that the defendant's inferred negligence was more probably than not a cause of the injury. The plaintiff need not prove the defendant's exclusive physical control or eliminate all other possible causes; it is enough that other responsible causes are sufficiently reduced so that the defendant's negligence is the most plausible explanation. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the doctrine applies even if the plaintiff's own negligence may also have contributed to the injury, with any plaintiff negligence addressed through comparative fault rather than as a bar to invoking the doctrine.

🔒

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 Hartford, Nora Kim is injured when a ceiling-mounted patient lift in a rehabilitation clinic suddenly drops several inches and jerks sideways. The clinic had an exclusive service contract with Meridian Mobility Systems to inspect and maintain the lift’s motor housing and track assembly, and those components were accessible only above a locked ceiling panel that clinic staff and patients never opened.

If Nora sues Meridian for negligence and relies on res ipsa loquitur, which is the strongest argument against a directed verdict for Meridian?

Explanation. The majority held that control is a flexible concept aimed at showing responsibility, not rigid exclusive physical possession. A plaintiff’s use of the instrumentality does not itself defeat res ipsa loquitur. If the defendant had maintenance responsibility for the inaccessible components and the evidence permits a reasonable inference that defendant negligence is more probably than not the cause, the case should go to the jury rather than be resolved by directed verdict.