Dover Elevator Co. v. Swann
Maryland Court of Appeals
334 Md. 231, 638 A.2d 762 (1994)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Swann (plaintiff) was injured while attempting to board an elevator that failed to level properly with the floor. Swann filed suit against Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) (defendant), the owner of the building where the elevator was located, and Dover Elevator Company (Dover Elevator) (defendant), the company that manufactured, installed, and maintained the elevator. Swann’s complaint alleged that he suffered $3 million in damages, due to defendants’ negligence and defects in the design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance of the elevator. At trial, Swann offered expert testimony from an elevator consultant and engineer. The expert explained, in explicit detail, how the defendants were negligent in failing to properly maintain the elevator. At the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on negligence but refused Swann’s request to also instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The jury held for the defendants. Swann appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court as to Prudential but reversed as to Dover Elevator. The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Dover Elevator appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chasanow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
