Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-02119/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-02119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Agee
Plaintiff
Chugach World Services Inc
Defendant
Kone, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS AGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUGACH WORLD SERVICES 

INC. and KONE, INC.,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:12-cv-2119-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Douglas Agee’s neck was injured

on June 9, 2010 when the elevator in which he was riding jerked. At the time of 

Mr. Agee’s injury, defendant Chugach World Services, Inc. was contractually 

responsible for maintaining and repairing the elevator. Mr. Agee asserted a variety 

of state law claims against Chugach. Chugach moved for summary judgment on 

all of Mr. Agee’s claims. (Doc. 40). The Court granted summary judgment on

every claim except for Mr. Agee’s negligent repair claim. (Doc. 54, pp. 17–19).

Pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Chugach asks 

the Court to reconsider its denial of summary judgment on Mr. Agee’s negligent 

repair claim. (Doc. 56). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Chugach’s 

motion for reconsideration.

FILED

 2014 Nov-06 PM 01:00

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 6
2

When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view “the 

facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party.” Hill v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 510 Fed. Appx. 810, 813 (11th Cir. 2013). 

At summary judgment, the “moving party bears the initial burden to show the 

district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of 

material fact that should be decided at trial.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 

F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). Rule 56(c) states: 

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support 

the assertion by: 

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, 

documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, 

stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), 

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or 

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence 

of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible 

evidence to support the fact. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Chugach contends that it met this initial burden because it 

“presented undisputed evidence establishing the elevator was operating safely and 

was not in a state of disrepair immediately prior to Mr. Agee’s injury.” (Doc. 57, 

pp. 4–5).

The Court respectfully disagrees. Chugach carried its initial burden with 

respect to all of Mr. Agee’s claims other than his negligent repair claim. With 

regard to the negligent repair claim, Chugach simply made bald, conclusory 

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 6
3

assertions like this one: “there is no evidence establishing the alleged malfunction 

of the elevator resulted from CWS’s negligent maintenance or repair work.” (Doc. 

41, p. 2; see also Doc. 40, ¶ 1). Chugach repeatedly lumped maintenance and 

repair together in these conclusory statements, but when Chugach referred to

“particular parts of materials in the record,” those materials concerned Chugach’s

regular maintenance of the elevator. For example, Chugach pointed out that, 

“CWS’s obligations with respect to elevator maintenance are set forth in 

subsections C.6.12.1.1.6 and C.6.12.3.9 of the Buildings and Structures Section of 

the ISS.” (Doc. 41, p. 5) (quoting contract provisions). Chugach submitted “an 

elevator inspection checklist, which set forth in detail all the checks and 

maintenance tasks” that maintenance personnel provided on a monthly basis, and a 

page from the preventative maintenance log for the elevator. (Doc. 41, p. 7; Docs. 

41-8, 41-9). Chugach provided expert testimony regarding the standard of care for 

routine maintenance. (Doc. 41, p. 18; Docs. 41-12, 41-13).

With respect to problems with the elevator that required repair, Chugach 

asserted only that it replied to requests for service calls in a timely manner and that

there were no “no outstanding work orders for the elevator” at the time of Mr. 

Agee’s injury. (Doc. 41, pp. 4, 17). Mr. Agee’s negligent repair claim does not 

concern the speed with which Chugach’s elevator technicians responded to reports 

of elevator malfunctions. Rather, Mr. Agee alleged:

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 3 of 6
4

26. Defendant Chugach breached that duty by negligently repairing

and/or negligently failing to properly repair the elevator involved in

Plaintiff’s injury.

27. The breach of the duty by Defendant resulted in the elevator

malfunctioning and suddenly falling and/or jerking or lurching while the

Plaintiff was a passenger in the elevator and that falling/jerking/lurching

incident resulted in the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.

(Doc. 1, p. 8). 

Chugach acknowledged that its elevator maintenance technicians “had to 

address several reported problems involving the north elevator from time to time,” 

but the company referred to no materials in the record that provided information 

about the steps that Chugach took to address the problems. (Doc. 41, p. 8). 

Chugach submitted no repair records with its summary judgment materials. (Docs. 

14-1 to 14-13). It submitted only a one-page log of work orders for the 12 months 

relevant to Mr. Agee’s claim. (Doc. 41-5, pp. 4, 25). Chugach sent repair 

technicians to work on the elevator on June 9, 2010, and on June 10, 2010, yet the 

log reflects neither of these visits. (Compare, e.g., Doc. 41-3, p. 11 & Doc. 45-7, 

p. 3 with Doc. 41-5, p. 25).1

 The log contains vague entries such as “check 

passenger elevator.” (Doc. 41-5, p. 25). It provides no substantive information 

regarding repairs to the elevator. 

 1 Jurors could reasonably infer from these gaps that Chugach’s repair records are incomplete.

 

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 4 of 6
5

Chugach’s expert offered no information regarding repairs made to the 

elevator during the time period relevant to Mr. Agee’s accident.2

 At best, through 

its argument, Chugach attempted to show that Mr. Agee “cannot produce 

admissible evidence to support” his negligent repair claim. (See, e.g., Doc. 41, p. 

8) (“Repair Requests. . . . Mr. Agee has no knowledge regarding any of the 

maintenance CWS performed on the north elevator and does not know any 

required maintenance activities that CWS failed to undertake. (Agee Depo., pp. 

179:8-180:12). Mr. Agee does not know the names of any of CWS’s elevator 

mechanics and has no knowledge regarding any training they received. (Id. at pp. 

186:19-187:4).”) (bold in original). 

Assuming for argument’s sake that Mr. Agee’s unfamiliarity with the 

maintenance performed on the elevator is enough to shift the burden to Mr. Agee 

on his negligent repair claim, Mr. Agee submitted an e-mail chain which addresses 

repairs Chugach made to the elevator. The final e-mail in the chain indicates that 

Chugach replaced the hydraulic pump and motor on the elevator two months prior 

to Mr. Agee’s accident, and an adjustable hydraulic valve was causing a rough start

and needed to be adjusted after Mr. Agee’s accident. (Doc. 45-7, p. 2). Chugach 

moved to strike the e-mail chain from the record. The Court denied the motion. 

 2 Chugach chose to place an expert affidavit and an expert report in the record. The Court may 

review these materials and note Chugach’s expert’s silence with respect to repairs made to the 

elevator, in contrast to the expert’s discussion of preventative maintenance topics. 

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 5 of 6
6

Chugach does not challenge the Court’s ruling on the company’s motion to strike. 

(Doc. 56). 

On the record before the Court, Mr. Agee’s negligent repair claim survives 

Chugach’s motion for summary judgment. The Court expresses no opinion about 

whether Mr. Agee’s negligent repair claim may survive a Rule 50 motion for 

judgment as a matter of law. That motion will be based upon the evidence in the 

record at trial.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Chugach’s motion for reconsideration. 

The Court directs the Clerk to please TERM Doc. 56. 

DONE and ORDERED this November 6, 2014.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:12-cv-02119-MHH Document 59 Filed 11/06/14 Page 6 of 6