After a long meeting with some executives of the company, Jane enters an elevator in the building owned by Hi-Flyer, Inc., and presses the button for the floor she wants to reach. The doors to the elevator close and suddenly the elevator goes into free fall, stopping abruptly at the lobby. Jane is seriously hurt and sues Hi-Flyer for damages. Upon receipt of the complaint, Hi-Flyer moves for summary judgment, noting that, while it is clear that Jane did fall, she has never proven, or for that matter even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Hi-Flyer, there is no evidence that they were at fault. What is the ruling of the Court?

Question

Kai Mueller

Business

25 December, 05:53

After a long meeting with some executives of the company, Jane enters an elevator in the building owned by Hi-Flyer, Inc., and presses the button for the floor she wants to reach. The doors to the elevator close and suddenly the elevator goes into free fall, stopping abruptly at the lobby. Jane is seriously hurt and sues Hi-Flyer for damages. Upon receipt of the complaint, Hi-Flyer moves for summary judgment, noting that, while it is clear that Jane did fall, she has never proven, or for that matter even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Hi-Flyer, there is no evidence that they were at fault. What is the ruling of the Court?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Natalie Hodge · Answer 1

The decision of the court would be that the since Jane was availing facility of the elevator the building owned by Hi. Flyer and has been harmed while availing the facility of the elevator. Therefore it is the responsibility of the building owner and consequently Jane ought to be made up for the injury endured because of the free fall of lift.