Md. Court of Special Appeals: Standard of care for elevators isn't

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), May 1, 2007 by Brendan Kearney

Elevator owners and operators owe their passengers the "highest degree of care," the same duty owed to passengers of common carriers such as public buses, the Court of Special Appeals held Monday.

Relying on a century-old case, the appellate court affirmed a nearly $300,000 verdict for a Bermudian woman who was injured when a Johns Hopkins Hospital elevator stopped abruptly in August 2000.

On appeal, the hospital argued the 1906 decision in Belvedere Bldg. Co. v. Bryan has become obsolete. The court viewed the intervening century's effects differently.

"[W]e fail to see why advancement in elevator technology should reduce the duty owed by owners/operators of elevators to elevator passengers," Judge James P. Salmon wrote for the court.

"Such scientific advancements have not changed the fact that an elevator, if not maintained and operated with the highest degree of care, is now, as it was when Belvedere was decided, 'in many respects a dangerous machine.'"

Evidence at trial showed Hopkins had received 32 complaints about the offending elevator in six months prior to the accident, Monday's opinion says.

Ronald U. Shaw of Shaw & Morrow PA, Hopkins' attorney, referred questions about the case and the possibility of appeal to Hopkins.

"We are disappointed in the court's findings but we have not read the court's decision yet," Joann Rodgers, spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins Medicine. "We're going to have to read it before assessing our options."

Nine-day trial

The decision for Jane Correia represented the first time since O'Neill & Co. v. Crummitt, decided by the Court of Appeals in 1937, that a state appellate court had been asked to decide whether Belvedere is still binding precedent.

The case arose when Correia, 43, was visiting her stepfather in the hospital's Nelson Building. She and her mother were on their way out when the elevator stopped without warning.

Correia, who had pre-existing back trouble, complained immediately of pain, according to the opinion. She was taken from the elevator to the emergency room in a wheelchair and later required two surgeries on her lower back and hip, said her attorney, Paul D. Bekman of Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins LLC.

After a nine-day trial in Baltimore City Circuit Court, the trial judge instructed the jury that an owner/operator of an elevator owes the passenger the "highest duty of care."

The jury found the hospital negligent and awarded Correia $264,500. The jury awarded a separate $35,000 to Correia and her husband, Dennis, for loss of consortium.

Hopkins' co-defendant, Schindler Elevator Co., was not found negligent. Bekman said jurors told him Schindler's short time on the scene - it had been in charge of elevator maintenance at the building for just two months at the time of the incident - saved it from responsibility.

Majority view

On appeal, Hopkins contended Baltimore City Circuit Judge Thomas E. Noel's jury instructions constituted error, arguing Hopkins owed elevator invitees only "reasonable care."

Salmon's opinion details the common law of other states with regard to an elevator operator's duty: 14 states and Washington, D.C., are in accord with Hopkins' position, while 21 states are in accord with Belvedere. In addition, California has imposed the highest duty of care by statute.

Bekman said his brief presented this national picture for the court.

"The overwhelming majority of the states hold exactly what Maryland does," Bekman said Monday. "We're not standing out on our own."

Hopkins also contended that it should have been granted a mistrial based on testimony of a Schindler employee.

Charles Stump, supervisor of Hopkins' elevators for Schindler, reviewed the building's elevators a week after the incident and testified that he found long-standing mechanical defects, such "damaged" or "worn" door interlocks.

"The inspection that Stump made was not in response to or as a result of the Correia accident," explained Bekman. "It was a planned inspection -, not a subsequent remedial procedure."

While Stump's report was not entered into evidence, he was permitted to speak about his observations and what they implied about conditions in the elevator at the time of the accident. Questions about the eventual replacement of elevator parts were off limits.

Schindler's attorney, however, mentioned replacement in cross- examining Stump, leading Hopkins to move for a new trial.

The appellate court ruled the trial judge had taken appropriate curative action by telling the jury to disregard the mention of any replacements. The appellate court further noted that the trial court had broad discretion in denying a motion for a new trial.

In 2005, Correia went on to become the first female commodore of the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club. She is the contracts administrator for Correia Construction Ltd., a family company of which her husband is a director, according to the company Web site.

Jane Correia will be a Progressive Labour Party candidate for parliament in Bermuda's upcoming election, according to an April article in The Royal Gazette, a daily newspaper published in Hamilton, Bermuda.