## Facts

- Louise Giles worked as an elevator operator in the Powell Building in New Haven.
- While she was operating the elevator, a “compensation chain” in the shaft swayed excessively, became hooked on a rail bracket, then broke free, causing a violent event that injured her.
- Giles claimed Otis Elevator Company, the elevator installer and maintenance contractor, negligently failed to inspect, maintain, and repair the elevator and its parts, including the compensation chain.
- Giles lacked direct proof of a specific negligent act or omission by Otis and relied on res ipsa loquitur to permit an inference of negligence from the nature of the occurrence.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Otis, concluding the evidence was insufficient to submit negligence to the jury under res ipsa loquitur.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the res ipsa theory should have gone to the jury, and Otis sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to infer Otis’s negligence under res ipsa loquitur for the elevator accident.
2. Whether the “control” requirement for res ipsa loquitur was defeated because Giles was operating (using) the elevator when the incident occurred.
3. Whether potential negligence by the plaintiff bars the use of res ipsa loquitur in a comparative negligence regime.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Appellate Court.
- The court held Giles produced sufficient evidence to submit the negligence question to the jury under res ipsa loquitur.
- The court ruled that “exclusive control” is not absolute; the jury could reasonably find Otis’s control over maintenance and the relevant internal components was sufficient to support an inference of negligence.
- The court held res ipsa loquitur may apply even if the plaintiff’s negligence may have contributed to the injury; any plaintiff fault is addressed through comparative negligence rather than by barring the inference.
- The case was not resolved on liability; the court required that the res ipsa inference be available for jury determination rather than removed by directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur permits a factfinder to infer negligence from an occurrence when: (1) the type of event ordinarily does not occur without negligence in construction, inspection, or use; (2) the instrumentality’s inspection and use were sufficiently within the defendant’s control; and (3) the occurrence is not required to be wholly independent of plaintiff conduct when comparative negligence applies.
- “Exclusive control” is a practical, not literal, requirement; the question is whether the defendant’s responsibility and control make it reasonable to infer the defendant is the probable source of negligence.
- Under comparative negligence, possible plaintiff contribution to the accident does not categorically bar res ipsa loquitur; it bears on apportionment of fault.

## Conclusion

The court held that an elevator operator injured by an internal mechanical failure could proceed to the jury on a res ipsa loquitur theory against the maintenance contractor, because control need not be absolute and comparative negligence permits the inference even when plaintiff fault is possible.


Giles v. City of New Haven, 228 Conn. 441, 636 A.2d 1335 (Conn. 1994)