Opinion ID: 1964909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Elevator Instruction

Text: The defendant contends that the trial justice erred when he failed to instruct the jury that passengers are not prohibited by law from using freight elevators. During the trial, the trial justice took judicial notice of a regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety, Elevator Inspection. That regulation defines a freight elevator as: An elevator primarily used for carrying freight and only which the operator and the persons necessary for loading and unloading freight are permitted to ride.  (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff requested the trial justice to instruct the jury that this regulation did not prohibit freight from being carried on a passenger elevator or for that matter, passengers being carried on freight elevator. However, the clear language of the regulation limits the use of a freight elevator only to those people who are necessary to the transportation of freight, namely, elevator operators and freight handlers. Consequently, the trial justice did not err when he failed to give the defendant's enigmatic requested instruction, which on the facts presented, had little or no relevant significance. At the time of the plaintiff's accident (after 10:30 p.m.), the elevator was not being used as a freight elevator; rather, it only was available to residential tenants in the building for their personal use. Thus, the elevator in the building served a dual purpose. During daytime hours the elevator served as a freight elevator to accommodate the various commercial uses in the building. At night, it was made available to residential tenants in the building, thus serving as a residential elevator for the building's tenants. Consequently, the relevant statute at the time of the accident was the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Pursuant to the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord owes a duty of care to a tenant to maintain elevators in good and safe working order and condition. G.L.1956 § 34-18-22(a)(4). However, a statutory violation does not relieve a jury of its responsibility to find a breach of a duty of care    but rather serves as prima facie evidence of liability, `which, unless rebutted by evidence in favor of the defendant, entitles the plaintiff to recover.' Errico v. LaMountain, 713 A.2d 791, 794 (R.I.1998) (quoting Rossi v. Ronci, 63 R.I. 250, 254-55, 7 A.2d 773, 776 (1939)). As a landlord and elevator owner, the defendant had a statutory duty to maintain the elevator in good and safe working order and condition. Based upon his own admissions, he breached that duty. He testified that he knew about the complaints concerning the outer door of the elevator on the fourth floor but that he failed to repair it because he didn't think that it was a problem. Because he knew or should have known about that condition and yet failed to take corrective action, then a jury was entitled to conclude that defendant[] had breached [his] duty of care to [the plaintiff]. Errico, 713 A.2d at 794.