## Facts

- Maureen McDaid, a condominium resident with cerebral palsy who used a walker, alleged that the building’s elevator doors unexpectedly and repeatedly closed on her as she exited, causing her to fall and sustain serious injuries.
- The elevator had two safety mechanisms intended to prevent door strikes: a mechanical safety edge (bumper) and an electric eye (photo-beam detector).
- Four days after the incident, a municipal code official inspected the elevator and found the electric eye needed repair.
- The elevator maintenance provider later found the electric eye relay contacts were not functioning properly and repaired them the same day.
- McDaid’s expert attributed the incident to a malfunctioning electric eye; defendants’ expert attributed it to McDaid’s failure to clear the doorway in time and opined the elevator was properly maintained.

## Issues

1. Whether res ipsa loquitur permits a jury to infer negligence when elevator doors close on and injure a passenger without direct proof of a specific negligent act or prior notice of a specific defect.
2. Whether disputes about plaintiff’s conduct and alternative causes bar application of res ipsa loquitur at the summary judgment stage.
3. Whether the condominium association, its management company, and its elevator contractor can be treated as having exclusive control of the elevator for res ipsa purposes.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that elevator doors closing on a passenger is an occurrence that ordinarily bespeaks negligence, supporting a permissive res ipsa loquitur inference.
- The Court concluded that the elevator and its safety systems were within defendants’ exclusive control for purposes of allowing a jury to consider res ipsa.
- The Court ruled that lack of direct proof of notice of the specific malfunction did not defeat res ipsa where the doctrine’s elements were otherwise satisfied.
- The Court held that disputes about McDaid’s conduct and competing causation theories are for the jury under comparative negligence principles.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur permits, in appropriate cases, a jury to infer negligence from an accident when: (1) the event ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, (2) the instrumentality was within defendants’ exclusive control, and (3) the injury was not primarily due to plaintiff’s voluntary act.
- The doctrine does not require a plaintiff to eliminate all non-negligent explanations; it allows a permissive inference where the occurrence is one that generally does not happen if due care is exercised.
- For complex, commonplace devices designed to operate safely around users (including elevator doors), a malfunction that directly strikes or traps a user can satisfy the “ordinarily bespeaks negligence” element.
- In res ipsa cases, a plaintiff need not present direct evidence of defendants’ prior notice of a specific defect; the inference may rest on a failure in reasonable inspection, maintenance, or monitoring.
- Comparative negligence disputes do not bar res ipsa at summary judgment; they typically present fact questions for the jury.

## Conclusion

The court held that an elevator door’s unexpected closing on a passenger supports a res ipsa loquitur inference against those responsible for operation and maintenance, making summary judgment improper and requiring that a jury decide negligence and comparative fault.


McDaid v. Aztec W. Condo. Ass’n, 234 N.J. 130 (2018)