WILLIAM EGAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. A.J. CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL.,
APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION.)
94 N.Y.2d 839 (1999).
December 16, 1999
1 No. 197
(99 NY Int. 0176)
Decided December 16, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Richard Bakalor, for appellant Otis Elevator.
Carol A. Moore, for appellant A.J. Construction.
Harold Y. Meltzer, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
the motions of defendants A.J. ConstructionCorporation and Otis
Elevator Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as
against them granted, and the certified question answered in the
negative.
Shortly after 7:30 a.m. on March 3, 1992, plaintiff, a carpenter
working on the construction of a Manhattan office building, entered
one of the building's freight elevators along with 25 to 30 other
construction workers. After the elevator ascended six feet above the
lobby, it came to a smooth stop and stalled. The elevator operator
immediately telephoned the lobby and requested assistance. After
stalling, the elevator remained lit, and did not move or make any
noise. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, two workers standing
toward the front of the elevator manually opened the car's inner and
outer doors and jumped to the lobby floor. When only plaintiff and the
operator remained, plaintiff jumped, landing on his heels. As a result
of the impact, plaintiff claims he felt a shock in his spine and later
began to experience intermittent pain in his back, neck and right
foot.
Plaintiff subsequently brought this negligence and Labor Law action
against the property's lessee, the general contractor, the contractor
that hired plaintiff's company and the elevator manufacturer. Supreme
SNIPPETS:
Carol A. Moore, for appellant A.J. Construction.
Harold Y. Meltzer, for respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the motions of defendants
After the elevator ascended six feet above the lobby, it came to a smooth stop and stalled.
Approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, two workers standing toward the front of the elevator
When only plaintiff and the operator remained, plaintiff jumped, landing on his heels.
Plaintiff subsequently brought this negligence and Labor Law action against the property's
With respect to the remaining claims, the court concluded that plaintiff's conduct was not a
The two dissenters agreed to the dismissal of the § 240claim, but concluded that plaintiff's
We now reverse and dismiss the surviving claims against these defendants.
plaintiff's act of jumping out of a stalled elevator six feet above the lobby floor after the
he was aware that the elevator operator had telephoned for assistance.
Although plaintiff was inconvenienced, he had only been on the elevator for 10 to 15 minutes
Plaintiff's reliance on Humbach v Goldstein is misplaced.
|
