Case Name: COHEN v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-02-09
Citations: 127 N.Y.S. 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: COHEN v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 127
Pages: 561–565

Head Matter:
(70 Misc. Rep. 548.)
COHEN v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 9, 1911.)
1. Negligence (§ 121 )—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Evidence.
The benefit of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is lost as soon as defendant makes a satisfactory explanation which will overcome the inference of negligence created by the mere happening of the accident.
[Ed. Note.—For other cáses, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 218, 225; Dec. Dig. § 121.*]
2. Carriers (§ 316 )—Elevator Passengers—Negligence—Evidence.
Where, in an action for injuries to an elevator passenger, defendant showed by a mechanician in charge of the elevator his daily inspection thereof and the machinery, and experts showed that they had made inspection at reasonable intervals, with a view to certify to the sufficiency and structural soundness of the elevator, the evidence overcame the in ference of negligence of defendant in maintaining unsuitable or defective appliances.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1290; Dec. Dig. § 316. ].
3. Carriers (§ 315 )—Elevator Passengers—Complaint—Evidence.
In an action for injuries to an elevator passenger, caused by the fall of the elevator because of structural defects or unsuitable appliances, the testimony of witnesses that prior to the accident the elevator had stopped of itself, and that the operator had held the rope in the guide so that the elevator would not go down when passengers left it, and that the operator had requested passengers to hurry, did not support the complaint.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1281, 1282; Dec. Dig. § 315. ]
4. Carriers (§ 316 )—Elevator Passengers—Actions—Evidence—Res Ipsa
Loquitur—Rebutting Presumption.
Where an elevator passenger, injured by the fall of the elevator, showed facts justifying an inference of defendant’s negligence, defendant could show due care, and could also show the cause of the accident, to rebut negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1290; Dec. Dig. § 316. ]
5. Carriers (§ 317*)—Elevator Passengers—Actions—Evidence.
In an action for injuries to an elevator passenger, caused by the fall of the elevator, defendant could show by the engineer in charge of the building whether he made an inspection of the elevator appliances immediately after the accident, disclosing the cause of the action of the elevator.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1295-1306; Dec. Dig. § 317. ]
Lehman, J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Actions by Harry Cohen, by Abraham Greenberg, by Jacob Green-stein, by Jacob Adler, and by Morris Rosenbaum against the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company. From judgments for plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before HENDRICK, LEHMAN, and DELANY, JJ.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew, for appellant.
Laurence J. Bershad, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DELANY, J.
These cases were tried together, and, except as to the injuries sustained by the respective plaintiffs, all the evidence applies to the case of each. The defendant, the owner of a loft building, had operated an elevator therein for conveying passengers and freight to the premises occupied by the several tenants, and on the day of the occurrence alleged to have caused the injuries complained of the plaintiffs were all passengers in the car of the elevator. The car had risen to the fifth floor, when suddenly it began to descend with increasing velocity until it stopped, as the plaintiffs testify, between the lower floors, and the car seemingly was wedged in its frame and tilted over to one side.
There is no testimony in the plaintiff's case to show the cause of the occurrence, and undoubtedly the plaintiff relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to make out a prima facie case. However discordant may seem the opinions of courts as to the conditions which may justify the invoking of this doctrine, there - can be no question that all the benefit of it is lost as soon as the defendant makes a satisfactory explanation which will overcome the inference of negligence created by the mere happening of the accident. In the case at bar the defendant showed by a mechanician in charge of both the building and the elevator his daily observation and inspection of the car and its machinery, and supplemented this testimony by that of two experts, who said that at reasonable intervals shown they had made inspections with a view to certifying to the efficiency and structural soundness of the elevator. All this testimony supported the position that the structure and its appliances were suitable for the purpose and not defective. Since the defendant was charged with negligence, it seems to me that this testimony overcomes the inference and requires the plaintiff to adduce evidence sufficient to sustain the charge.
The only testimony produced with this purpose in view was that of two of the plaintiffs, one of whom testified that the elevator "stopped of itself many times before the accident," and another who testified, explaining his meaning:
"When we were to go out from the elevator, the elevator used to go down, and then he [evidently the operator] used td hold the rope in the guide, whatever you call it, so that the elevator shouldn't go down, and he says, 'Step lively!' "
It needs no discussion that this testimony is not sufficient to prove the allegations of negligence on the part of defendant. The complaint should have, therefore, been dismissed.
Apart from these reasons for disagreement with the ruling of the learned court below, there is in the case another ruling which worked substantial prejudice to defendant. Conceding, if one will, that the plaintiff's case raised an inference of defendant's negligence, defendant had a right not only to show its due care in the matter, but, if it chose, the cause of the accident. For aught any one knows, extraneous interference had produced it, thus conclusively settling the question ; and when, then, the defendant asked the question of the engineer in charge of the building, "Did you make any examination of the elevator and its appliances after the accident, immediately after the accident?" the question should have been allowed. The exclusion of the question which may have been designed to disclose the cause of the irregular action of the elevator, the defendant excepting, was error. Starer v. Stern, 100 App. Div. 393, 91 N. Y. Supp. 821.
Judgments reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.