Giles v. City of New Haven

636 A.2d 1335 (1994)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
G
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Giles v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Supreme Court
636 A.2d 1335 (1994)

Play video

Facts

Giles (plaintiff) was an elevator operator for an elevator maintained by Otis (defendant). While ascending in the elevator, Giles noticed that the elevator compensation chain had swayed too far and failed. Unable to reach the chain from the inside of the elevator, Giles sustained injuries when the elevator cabin shook due to the chain’s failure. Giles reversed the elevator’s direction in order to exit at the nearest floor. The elevator’s parts, including the compensation chain, were maintained exclusively by Otis. Giles brought a claim of negligence against Otis, requesting the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. A witness for Otis testified that for the compensation chain to sway excessively, Giles must have misoperated the elevator, probably by rapidly reversing the elevator’s direction. Giles testified that she only reversed direction after the chain had failed. The trial court did not apply res ipsa loquitur and granted Otis’s motion for a directed verdict. On appeal, Otis argued that res ipsa loquitur should not apply, as Giles had control over the chain sway at the time of the accident. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court, finding that Giles had presented enough evidence to submit the issue of negligence to the jury under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Torts

Key Terms