Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialsummary judgmentcomparative negligence
plaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Thing v. LaChusa, 231 Cal.Rptr. 439
View Case »
Smith v. Parrott, 175 Vt. 375, 833 A.2d 843, 2003 VT 64
View Case »
Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 5 P.3d 280, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 3458
View Case »
O’Sullivan v. Shaw, 431 Mass. 201, 726 N.E.2d 951
View Case »
Williams v. Hays, 98 Sickels 442, 143 N.Y. 442, 38 N.E. 449
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cox v. May Dept. Store Co., 183 Ariz. 361, 903 P.2d 1119

Facts

On December 29, 1990, Janelle Cox was riding an escalator at Robinson's Department Store when her jacket became caught between the moving handrail and the stationary guide, causing her to be thrown and injured. Prior inspections of the escalator by both Montgomery Elevator Company and the City of Phoenix found no defects. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against both May Department Store and Montgomery Elevator Company, claiming they failed to maintain a safe environment and properly service the escalator.

On December 29, 1990, Janelle Cox (“Cox”) was ascending the escalator at Robinson's Department Store (“Robinson's”), owned by May, when the jacket she was wearing became lodged between the escalator's moving handrail and stationary guide. This caused her to be thrown down and dragged to the top of the escalator, resulting in physical injury.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants by concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable in this case?

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendants by concluding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable in this case?

Rule

The elements of res ipsa loquitur in Arizona require that: 1) the accident must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; 2) it must be caused by an agency within the exclusive control of the defendant; 3) it must not be due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; and 4) the plaintiff must not be in a position to show the particular circumstances that caused the injury.

The necessary elements of res ipsa loquitur in Arizona have been: 1. The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; 2. The accident must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; 3. The accident must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; and 4. The plaintiff must not be in a position to show the particular circumstances which caused the offending agency or instrumentality to operate to her injury.

Analysis

The court found that the first element of res ipsa loquitur was satisfied because the accident would not likely have occurred without negligence. The second element was also met as the escalator was under the exclusive control of the defendants. The court concluded that the third element was no longer required due to the advent of comparative negligence, and the fourth element was satisfied as the plaintiffs had adequately investigated the escalator's condition. Therefore, the court determined that the plaintiffs could proceed with their case under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

We conclude that it is permissible for a trier of fact to find that the accident in the instant case would not likely have occurred without negligence. Cox was ascending the escalator in a normal fashion and wearing a normal jacket when her jacket became caught under the handrail.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

We therefore conclude that plaintiffs are not required to establish that the accident was not due to any voluntary action on the part of Cox.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Janelle and David Preston Cox, prevailed because the court found sufficient grounds to allow their case to proceed to trial under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently established elements one, three, and four, but that they had not established the second element.

You must be