Hurt in a New York Elevator? Why the Maintenance Company May Not Be Responsible

When someone is hurt in an elevator, one of the first questions is simple: who is responsible?

Most people assume the answer is the elevator maintenance company. In New York, that assumption is often wrong, and the real answer depends on a contract the injured passenger has never seen. 

In an earlier post, I walked through the most common types of elevator accidents. This time, I want to focus on the question that trips up a lot of elevator cases: who actually owes a legal duty to the passenger. 

A Quick Look at Common Elevator Accidents 

Elevator injuries tend to fall into a few familiar patterns: 

• Misleveling. The elevator stops at a floor, but the cab sits above or below the landing. A person stepping in or out trips and falls. 

• Closing doors. A passenger is struck or trapped by doors that lack a working soft edge or electronic eye. 

• Overloading. An elevator carrying more than it should can fail in ways that injure the people inside. 

• Open shaft falls. The most catastrophic cases happen when the doors open, but there is no elevator on the other side. A person steps forward into the shaft, often with catastrophic or fatal injuries. 

The Building Owner Cannot Pass the Buck 

In New York City, and throughout New York State, a building owner has what is called a non-delegable duty to keep the elevator and its parts in a reasonably safe condition. Non-delegable means the owner cannot hand that responsibility off to someone else. 

Responsible owners do what anyone would do: they hire an elevator maintenance company. Many people assume that once a maintenance company is hired, that company owes a duty to everyone who rides the elevator. The honest lawyer’s answer is: it depends. And many times, it does not. 

What the Espinal Decision Means for Elevator Cases 

New York's highest court addressed this question in a landmark decision known as Espinal. The case looks at when a company that signs a contract owes a duty of care to people who are not part of that contract. 

Here is why that matters. The maintenance company signs an agreement with the building owner. It clearly owes contractual duties to the owner. But the passengers riding the elevator never signed anything. Courts now apply the Espinal framework to elevator cases to decide whether the maintenance company owes those passengers a duty at all. 

The short version: being hired to maintain an elevator does not automatically make the maintenance company responsible when a passenger is hurt. (A contract may separately include an indemnification clause that lets the owner seek reimbursement from the maintenance company. That is a separate issue between the two businesses.) 

Oil and Grease Contracts vs. Comprehensive Contracts 

The answer often turns on what kind of maintenance contract is in place. 

Oil and grease contract. This is the most basic arrangement. A technician comes in, lubricates and oils what needs it. It will oftentimes not include periodic inspections, such as Category 1 or five-year Category 5 tests, repairs and/or callbacks. Courts have found that these basic contracts do not create a duty of care to passengers. If the maintenance company only had an oil and grease contract, it is not necessarily responsible for your injury. The owner, with its non-delegable duty, remains on the hook. 

Comprehensive contract. This contract is exactly what it sounds like. The maintenance company takes over the owner's duty to keep the elevator safe and includes preventative maintenance, emergency callback service, and repairs.

With this type of contract, courts have held that the maintenance company does owe a duty of care to passengers. If a passenger is hurt because of a condition the company arguably should have discovered and repaired, the company can be held responsible in a lawsuit.  There are real qualitative and quantitative differences between these two types of contracts, and some fall somewhere in between. 

Why Injured Passengers Cannot Know This on Their Own 

Here is the problem. When someone is hurt in an elevator, they have no way of knowing: 

• Whether a maintenance contract even exists 

• If it does, whether it is a basic oil and grease contract, a comprehensive contract, or something in between 

That answer can decide who is legally responsible, and it is not apparent on the surface of any case. 

Why Speaking With a Lawyer Early Matters 

Timing is critical in elevator cases. If something was truly wrong with the elevator, a responsible owner will likely have it repaired, often before a lawsuit is ever filed and before your own expert has a chance to inspect it. 

An expert opinion based on an elevator that has since been repaired or modified, sometimes years later, does not rest on a solid foundation. That is why evidence of the elevator's condition at the time of the incident has to be preserved. 

One tool a lawyer can use is pre-action discovery. This is a special proceeding brought in court that instructs the owner not to touch the elevator and allows an expert to inspect it in the condition it was in when the incident happened. We have successfully used this approach in the past. 

As the case moves forward, the discovery process will identify the elevator maintenance company and produce a copy of its contract. That contract will determine whether the maintenance company owes a separate duty of care to the injured passenger. 

Injured in an Elevator Accident in New York? 

If you or someone you love has been hurt in an elevator accident, speak with a lawyer sooner rather than later. We are happy to talk with you about your case and what your options might be. 

Jonathan R. Ratchik Kramer, Dunleavy & Ratchik, PLLC 

Experience you expect, commitment you deserve. 

212-226-6662 | www.kdrpilawyers.com 

(Attorney Advertising)