United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER AND OPINION [RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 103, 110,
113]
JOHN
W. SEDWICK SENIOR JUDGE.
I.
MOTIONS PRESENTED
At
docket 103, Plaintiff Roberta Urena (“Plaintiff”)
requests that the court rule in advance of trial that the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case,
which involves injuries allegedly caused by an elevator
malfunction, thereby lessening Plaintiff's burden on the
showing of negligence. Schindler Elevator and Columbia Sussex
(“Defendants”) oppose the motion at docket 132.
At
docket 113, Plaintiff asks the court to rule that a
heightened “common carrier” standard of care
applies to this case. Defendants oppose the motion at docket
130.
At
docket 110, Plaintiff requests that the court, if not
inclined to rule in her favor on the appropriate standard of
care, certify these issues as ones appropriate for the Alaska
Supreme Court to answer. Defendants initially opposed
Plaintiff's request at docket 136.
II.
BACKGROUND
This
lawsuit arises out of an elevator malfunction that occurred
on September 21, 2013, at the Hilton Hotel in downtown
Anchorage. Plaintiff was the sole passenger in the Hilton
elevator when it made an unexpected safety stop. Plaintiff
alleges that the elevator plunged in a free fall for eight
floors before coming to a stop. Plaintiff was trapped in the
elevator between the fifth and sixth floors and had to be
extracted by the Anchorage Fire Department. She alleges that
she suffered injuries because of the fall. Defendants
acknowledge that there was an unexpected emergency stop but
dispute that the elevator did a free fall and dispute the
distance the elevator dropped during the stop.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
“The
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur permits, but does not
compel, an inference of negligence from the circumstances of
an injury.”[1] “The doctrine, where applicable, is
a bridge, dispensing with the requirement that a plaintiff
specifically prove breach of duty, once that duty and
proximate cause have been established.”[2] The doctrine
should be applied when:
(1) the accident is one which ordinarily does not occur in
the absence of someone's negligence;
(2) the agency or instrumentality is within the exclusive
control of the defendant;
(3) the injurious condition or occurrence was not due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
plaintiff.[3]
This
three-part inquiry helps determine whether the
plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to show that it is
more probable than not that the injury resulted from the
defendant's breach of duty. That is, “where several
causes of an accident are equally probable, a plaintiff may
still avail himself of res ipsa loquitur by presenting
evidence which tends to eliminate all but those causes
resulting from defendant's
negligence.”[4] If the plaintiff succeeds in doing so, an
inference of negligence on the part of the defendant arises
and the defendant must present rebuttal
evidence.[5] “[T]he doctrine makes recovery
possible where circumstances render proof of ...