Pyle v. Otis Elevator Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4283

CYRIL PYLE v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 17, 2020

MEMORANDUM

ELIZABETH T. HEY, U.S.M.J.

Plaintiff Cyril Pyle brought suit against Otis Elevator Company ("Defendant" or "Otis") to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the misleveling of an elevator. Presently before the court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, I will grant the motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Except where stated, the following facts are not in dispute. On August 19, 2017, while working as an emergency room technician at Aria-Jefferson Health Frankford ("Aria"), Plaintiff was injured while exiting an elevator because the doors opened before the elevator became level with the exiting floor surface. See Complaint, Doc. 18 Exh. A (Doc. 18-4) ("Complaint") ¶ 6; Cyril Pyle Deposition, Doc. 18 Exh. D (Doc. 18-7) & Doc. 22 Exh. A (Doc. 22-3) ("Pyle Dep."), at 22, 59-65.¹ On the day of the incident, Plaintiff had used the elevator to transport a patient to the fourth floor, and then returned to the elevator with an empty gurney that was "top-heavy" because it was raised up andcarrying a heavy oxygen tank. Pyle Dep. at 58-62, 64, 66. He took the elevator back to the ground floor, and the doors opened normally. Id. at 62. He was positioned at the rear of the elevator, and swung the gurney toward the right so as to make a left turn out of the elevator into the hallway. Id. at 62-63. As he did so the gurney dropped to the right, and he attempted to keep the gurney from toppling over to the right as he moved into the hallway, causing him to pin or roll his ankle against a metal office door in the hallway and thereby causing serious injury. Id. at 63-66, 75. Plaintiff testified that he was looking up as he exited the elevator and did not observe a misleveling, id. at 62, 69-70, 80-81, but that he looked back while the doors were closing and saw the elevator "up off the floor [by], like, six inches to one foot." Id. at 88.

Plaintiff did not fill out an incident report on the day of his fall, and he told his supervisor that he thought he had "twisted" his foot. Pyle Dep. at 67-68. Plaintiff transported 48 more patients during the remainder of his shift, including some using the same elevator. Id. at 65, 67. Plaintiff did not see the elevator mislevel for the rest of his shift, id. at 80-81, 84, nor had he ever observed it mislevel prior to the incident. Id. at 51, 90-91. Plaintiff sought medical attention four days after the incident, id. at 95, and he returned to work for two weeks wearing a boot. Id. at 109. On December 5, 2017, he was diagnosed with a broken bone and torn ligament. Id. at 115.

Defendant performed maintenance on the elevator pursuant to a Master Agreement between it and Aria. See Master Agreement and Otis Maintenance, Doc. 18 Exh. E (Doc. 18-8) ("Contract"). The Contract includes a nine-page maintenance agreement, entitled "Otis Maintenance," by which Defendant agreed to perform regular inspection andmaintenance on elevators at the Aria facility. Contract at OTIS 016-024.² For example, the Contract calls for a preventive maintenance program including inspection, lubrication, adjustment, repair and replacement, periodic examination of safety devices and governors, and monthly maintenance. Id. at OTIS 016, 018, 020.

Otis maintenance mechanic Robert Huff testified that he was responsible for servicing the elevator, and that his duties included checking the operation of the elevator, proper lubrications, and adjusting and replacing parts due to their condition or age. Huff Dep. at 19, 28. He testified that he never saw the Contract, and that Otis never gave him a written description of his duties regarding the servicing of the elevator. Id. at 26, 29. He performed service on the elevator through a scheduling system set by his supervisor, id. at 32-34, 39, and he believed that his supervisor inspected the elevator a couple of times per year. Id. at 34, 35. Mr. Huff explained that as a maintenance mechanic he performed minor repairs and responded to service calls, which is different from a servicing technician who would repair malfunctions. Id. at 74, 78, 84-85. He testified that a basic inspection and test of an elevator's proper functioning consists of riding the elevator. Id. at 42, 92, 103-04. If he saw a problem, he would investigate even though it was not specifically assigned. Id. at 41. He never requested or submitted a schedule regarding maintenance of the units at Aria, and he never made an annual report regarding recommended maintenance. Id. at 42-43. Similarly, he was not aware of an Otis checklist of things to be performed on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Id. at 47-48.

Mr. Huff identified the elevator in question as a traction-type elevator built in the 1980's. Huff Dep. at 68. He testified that there are several systems involved in making it level with the adjacent floor, including an optical eye on the elevator car that reads the floor level, electrical contacts that relay the floor level, and relays in the control panel. Id. at 73, 79, 110-11. He explained that the system required monthly cleaning of the optical eye using compressed air, and that three-to-six-month maintenance included cleaning, lubricating, checking the software, and making sure contacts were not burned, although Otis had no system for him to check when the last time the optical eye was checked or inspected. Id. at 73-74. He also explained that the elevator had an approximate six-inch door zone, meaning that the doors could open if the elevator was misleveled three inches above or three inches below the adjacent floor, but not more than that because the clutch has to be within reach of the doors to enable them to open. Id. at 80-81.³ It would be considered a malfunction requiring a service call if the doors opened while the unit was not level with the floor. Id. at 85. A misleveling of the elevator could be caused by a problem with the contacts, relays, or optical eye, and such a problem "would not fix itself." Id. at 113.

Mr. Huff testified that he learned about the alleged misleveling incident at issue the day before his deposition, and that he did not recall ever noticing a problem with theelevator's leveling. Huff Dep. at 106. He explained that if he noticed something unsafe or unreliable, he had complete authority to lock out the unit and prevent it from being used. Id. at 113-14. He also stated that if the elevator functioned adequately when inspected, he could not guarantee that it would be safe the next day or week. Id. at 115-16.

Otis maintenance supervisor Joseph Caperna, Mr. Huff's direct supervisor, testified that the Contract required Defendant to provide preventative maintenance to maintain the elevator's performance and reliability, and that he was responsible for setting the maintenance schedule. Joseph Caperna Deposition, Doc. 22 Exh. C (Doc. 22-5) ("Caperna Dep."), at 8, 25, 27. He testified that Pennsylvania's elevator code requires leveling with an adjacent floor to within one-half inch, id. at 52-53, but he believed that the elevator had a four-inch door zone, meaning the doors could open if the elevator was misleveled up to two inches in either direction from the adjacent floor, and that the maximum door zone was determined by the location of the clutch. Id. at 77-79. He stated that there was nothing unusual with the elevator prior to Plaintiff's incident, id. at 40, and that an elevator could mislevel on one occasion and then work properly thereafter depending on factors such as the temperature in the machine room, the humidity in the building, and the building voltage to the motor generator. Id. at 79-80.

The record also includes Defendant's maintenance reports for the elevator for the period from July 27 through December 22, 2017. See Maintenance Reports, Doc. 22Exh. E (Doc. 22-7), at Otis 0120-0186 ("Maintenance Reports").⁴ These records are difficult to understand, but they do not appear to show service calls or maintenance related to elevator misleveling during this time, nor do they memorialize the incident related to Plaintiff's fall on August 19, 2017. To the extent the Maintenance Reports reflect work performed on the elevator (Unit #7) during the period immediately before and after Plaintiff's incident, they appear to indicate "Work Compl." dates of July 27, 2017 (Otis 0109-0114), August 2, 2017 (Otis 0115-0122), August 4, 2017 (Otis 0123-0126), August 8, 2017 (Otis 0127), August 18, 2017 (Otis 0128), and September 5, 2017 (Otis 0129-0132). For example, the August 2 and 4 maintenance records contains remarks including "Contlr Maint-Tr," "Sel Clean & Lub," and "Brake Maintenan." Otis 0115, 0120, 0123. The records show a service call on August 8 indicating that the door gibs were about to fall off, and that Mr. Huff repaired the gibs and noted that a call button needed to be replaced. Otis 0127.⁵

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging negligenceand vicarious liability arising from his fall while exiting the elevator. Complaint, Claims I & II. On September 17, 2019, Defendant removed the matter to this court. Doc. 1. The parties thereafter consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, see Docs. 11 & 12, and completed discovery.

On April 17, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence as a matter of law, by failing to obtain an expert report to show that Defendant failed to reasonably inspect or maintain the elevator, and because Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Doc. 18. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. Docs. 22 & 26.

II. LEGAL...