HOUSTON – A federal court has granted the dismissal of claims brought by a package delivery worker against the manufacturer of an elevator whose alleged malfunction caused injuries to the plaintiff more than three years ago.
On Sept. 25, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Keith P. Ellison ruled in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, and threw out the claims brought by plaintiff Ufaller Henningan.
“On May 3, 2021, plaintiff Ufaller Henningan was delivering packages at the Nordstrom in the Galleria Mall. She was taking East Elevator 4 to the first floor when the power went out. The elevator then dropped approximately two floors before it stopped between the first and second floors, injuring Henningan. The parties agree that the power outage triggered the incident. Henningan subsequently brought the present premises liability case against Schindler as well as Simon Property Group and HG Galleria in Texas state court. Defendant Schindler removed the suit to this Court. The claims against Simon Property Group and HG Galleria were dismissed on Jan. 4, 2024, after the parties submitted an agreed motion to dismiss,” Ellison said.
“Schindler, the only remaining defendant, moved for summary judgment in October 2024. Henningan moved for a continuance of its response deadline in order to obtain additional summary judgment evidence through discovery. The Court granted the continuance. The Court also granted a subsequent unopposed continuance so that Henningan could continue to gather summary judgment evidence. Henningan now responded to the pending motion, and Schindler replied. Henningan then filed a supplemental response to the pending motion requesting that the Court continue its consideration of the motion until the parties could depose plaintiff’s expert witness. Defendant agreed to the brief continuance, and the Court granted the continuance and allowed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the impact of the deposition on the pending motion. The parties conducted the deposition on Sept. 4, 2024 and filed supplemental briefing. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is now ripe for consideration.”
In its summary judgment motion, Schindler argued that (1) Henningan cannot show that any action or inaction of Schindler’s was a proximate cause of her injuries and (2) Henningan cannot show that Schindler had a duty to make the premises safe or a duty to warn.
Ellison began his analysis by saying that to prevail, Henningan must show that Schindler engaged in an act or omission that was the proximate cause of her injuries, and the plaintiff carried the burden of proof on causation.
“The parties agree that the power outage caused the elevator to fall. However, Henningan contends that ‘the power outage was simply the catalyst that ignited the hazardous condition that was East Elevator 4 and its improper maintenance.’ Unfortunately, Henningan fails to put forth a cogent theory for how any specific act or omission of Schindler’s caused the elevator to fall after the power outage. Although she gestures broadly to alleged inadequate maintenance, her briefing does not identify any specific way in which Schindler failed to properly maintain the elevator or how such maintenance failures caused this incident. Henningan primarily relies on her expert, Joseph Stabler, to prove causation,” Ellison stated.
“However, Stabler’s report likewise fails to put forth any specific theory that a reasonable jury could find satisfies Henningan’s burden to prove causation. Stabler notes that in the year leading up to the power outage, the elevator had five ‘Control Battery Charge Time Expired events’ and four ‘Overtemp Motor events.’ He states that Schindler failed to conduct any root cause analysis of these issues after receiving notice of them. However, he fails to provide any explanation for how these failures could relate to the elevator falling on the date of the incident.”
Ellison continued in looking at the control battery errors, Stabler’s report indicates that a ‘Control Battery Charge Time Expired’ error message refers to a battery inside the controller that is constantly being recharged, so that if power is lost it will keep an ‘SMLCD screen’ energized.
Ellison said it appeared that the SMLCD screen allows one to look at error logs for the purpose of troubleshooting issues with the elevator, and thus, that the battery’s “only purpose is to power a screen system that would allow a technician to troubleshoot issues with the elevator.”
“As for the ‘Overtemp Motor’ error message, Stabler’s report does not indicate what this message means or how it is in any way related to the incident. Based on other evidence in the record, it appears this message indicates that the elevator’s motor was too hot and shut down. While Stabler claims that Schindler should have performed maintenance on the elevator after it was notified of these errors, neither Stabler’s report nor any other evidence identified by Henningan indicates how these errors could have possibly caused the incident. In fact, the elevator components at issue appear to be wholly unrelated to any mechanism in the elevator that would have prevented it from falling or that would stopped the fall more quickly after the power went out,” Ellison said.
“There is no evidence in the record that the control battery failed during the power outage or that it powers anything besides a screen in the elevator that can be used to troubleshoot other mechanical failures. Henningan even admitted in the deposition that the control battery did not cause the elevator to stop. The same is true for the motor, as nothing in the record indicates it was overheated during the incident or that such overheating could have contributed to the incident. In sum, Henningan fails to proffer any theory for how lack of maintenance of these two components could have led to the elevator falling after the power outage.”
Ellison stated that “nor do the many conclusory opinions contained in Stabler’s report and deposition suffice to save Henningan’s claim.”
“Stabler states that ‘the incident in which plaintiff Ufaller Henningan was injured would not normally occur absent the failure of those persons responsible to care for, examine, adjust, maintain, repair, service and troubleshoot the elevator to ensure proper operating conditions.’ He also states, ‘failure to maintain, service and repair the elevator in accordance with the aforementioned maintenance agreement, adopted codes, laws and standards, may cause or contribute to abnormal movements of the elevator including rapid acceleration and deceleration rates and abrupt stops, as mentioned herein.’ Stabler reiterated this analysis at his deposition and stated that, in the absence of proper maintenance, an elevator can experience unusual issues during a power outage,” Ellison said.
“Stabler went on to describe some of the elevator mechanisms that can malfunction during a power outage, such as control components and operating systems. Noticeably absent from Stabler’s findings is any conclusion as to what specific maintenance failures could have caused this incident. As Henningan has not provided any evidence that Schindler failed to maintain a component of the elevator that could have led to the May 3, 2021 incident, there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find she has met her burden of proving causation. Because summary judgment is appropriate on these grounds, the Court need not reach Schindler’s remaining arguments.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas case 4:23-cv-00366
80th District Court, Harris County, Texas case 2022-78750
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com