## Facts

- Janelle Cox was injured while riding an escalator in a department store operated by May Department Store Company (doing business as Robinson’s).
- As she ascended, her jacket became lodged between the escalator’s moving handrail and a stationary guide, causing her to be thrown down and dragged to the top.
- Cox testified she noticed nothing unusual about the escalator’s operation, rode in a normal manner, and did not know how her jacket became caught.
- May had contracted with Montgomery Elevator Company to maintain the escalator.
- Montgomery inspected the escalator 11 days before the incident and found no maintenance required; it inspected again about two weeks after and again found no need for maintenance.
- The City of Phoenix inspected the escalator about four months before and two months after the incident and found no problems or defects on either occasion.
- The Coxes sued May for negligent premises maintenance and failure to warn, and sued Montgomery for negligence related to the escalator’s design/installation/maintenance and failure to warn.
- The plaintiffs relied on res ipsa loquitur to prove negligence without identifying a specific defect or negligent act.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur permitted a jury to infer negligence from an escalator accident in which the plaintiff’s clothing was drawn into the handrail mechanism, despite no direct evidence of a specific defect or negligent act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for May and Montgomery and remanded.
- The court held the plaintiffs produced enough evidence to invoke res ipsa loquitur, making summary judgment improper.
- The court treated the escalator—not the plaintiff’s jacket—as the relevant instrumentality for purposes of res ipsa loquitur.
- The court concluded a reasonable jury could find the occurrence was one that ordinarily does not happen absent negligence.
- The court held that any possible plaintiff contribution was addressed through comparative fault rather than defeating res ipsa loquitur at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when (1) the accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, (2) the injury-causing instrumentality was within the defendant’s control in a practical sense, and (3) direct proof of the specific negligent act or defect is unavailable.
- For complex mechanisms used by invitees, the relevant “instrumentality” may be the mechanism itself rather than the plaintiff’s clothing or other personal item.
- Under comparative negligence, the traditional res ipsa requirement that the plaintiff’s injury not be due to any voluntary action is not a rigid bar; potential plaintiff fault is generally for apportionment by the factfinder.
- On summary judgment, courts must view the record and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party; if reasonable jurors could differ on res ipsa’s applicability, the case must proceed.

## Conclusion

The court held that an escalator injury in which a patron’s clothing is drawn into the handrail mechanism may support res ipsa loquitur, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to reach a jury on negligence claims against both the store operator and the maintenance contractor despite the absence of an identified defect and despite inspections showing no problems.


Cox v. May Dep’t Store Co., 903 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995)