Otis Elevator Co. v. Faulkner

Citations: 288 Ark. 344; 705 S.W.2d 428; 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1805Docket: 85-210

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 17, 1986; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Darrell Hickman, Justice, presided over a case involving Terry Faulkner, an employee of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), who sustained injuries when a freight elevator, serviced by Otis Elevator Company, suddenly fell from the fourth floor to just below the third floor landing. The jury awarded Faulkner $191,127, with the sole issue on appeal being whether sufficient evidence existed to prove Otis' negligence as the proximate cause of the accident. The jury concluded that it did, and the court upheld the verdict, finding no legal grounds to overturn it.

Faulkner's case relied on expert testimony, a serviceman's accounts, and repair records, which indicated that a faulty drive sheave, recommended for repair by Otis, caused the elevator to fall and subsequently trigger the safety brakes. Otis' defense contended that the accident did not occur as described and that, if it had, there was no evidence of negligence. They argued that a worn drive sheave would cause the elevator to rise, not fall, yet did not provide expert testimony to support this claim. 

The court emphasized its role in reviewing evidence favorably for the appellees and noted that the jury, not the court, determined the weight of witness testimony. Testimony from Faulkner indicated he experienced a sudden and alarming descent, resulting in his injury. Uncontested facts included Otis' service contract for the elevator since 1976, regular maintenance calls, and prior notifications regarding the elevator's operational issues. Notably, Otis had previously recommended repairs to the worn drive sheave, which had been documented in July 1979 and again in July 1980, prior to the incident.

Otis contended at trial that Faulkner failed to demonstrate that 3M had approved necessary repairs before work commenced. However, circumstantial evidence indicated that 3M typically approved Otis' recommendations and that the governor, essential for safety stops, had not been repaired prior to the accident. An Otis serviceman, Norman Beckman, removed the governor on September 8, and after 3M replaced the shaft, Beckman recalibrated it. He later removed the governor again due to an oversight regarding a grease fitting hole. A 'call back and repair' sheet documented frequent issues with the elevator, including overload switch failures and operational problems, particularly 19 reports in the year and a half leading up to the accident. Shortly after the accident, it was noted the elevator was operating past the floor.

Bob Early, an elevator consultant, provided expert testimony for Faulkner, asserting that a power surge caused the elevator to jerk downward due to worn drive sheave and cable traction issues. Early indicated that such surges were common and noted that prior incidents of the elevator slipping should have alerted Otis to potential problems. He disputed the notion that slippage would cause the elevator to ascend rather than descend, despite Otis arguing otherwise. Evidence suggested the counterweight was heavier than the elevator, but specifics were unclear. Otis did not present expert rebuttal but cited an Otis supervisor's experience, claiming the car would rise under similar conditions. Historical cases involving Otis highlighted juries' entitlement to infer negligence from similar prior incidents, even when specific faults were not identified.

An expert testified that the drive motor malfunctioned, leading to an overspeed condition. Otis maintained that the elevator was functioning properly before and after the incident. The court noted that the jury could reasonably conclude the elevator was out of order due to inadequate inspection. Unlike previous cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, this case includes expert testimony that lends credibility to the accident's occurrence as explained by Early. The court emphasized that dismissing Early's testimony as incredible would require expertise in physics and mechanics that the court does not possess. The evidence presented is not entirely undisputed, allowing for substantial evidence on appeal. Otis had the opportunity to refute this expert testimony but failed to do so convincingly. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, stating that the evidence was substantial and legally sufficient. Judge Purtle did not participate in the decision.