Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 49 September Term, 2007 _________________________________________

THE JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL, et al.

v.

JANE E. S. CORREIA, et al. _________________________________________ * Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C. (Retired, Specially Assigned) Wilner, Alan M . (Retired, Specially Assigned) Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. _________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. _________________________________________ Filed: August 25, 2008 *Raker, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, she also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

W e granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in this tort action in order to review the standard set forth in numerous Maryland cases that owners or operators of elevators owe their passengers the highest degree of care and diligence practicable under the circumstances to guard against inju ry. I. On August 30, 2000, respondent Jane Correia was a passenger in one of the elevators located in Johns Hopkins Hospital when a mechanical defect caused the elevator to come to a jarring halt. Mrs. Correia immedia tely complained of back pain and was taken to the hospital's emergency room. She eventually was required to have surgery on her back and hip for the injuries sustained when the elevator malfunctioned. Almost three years later, Mrs. Correia and her husband filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the owner and operator of the elevator, Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Health Systems Corporation (hereafter collectively referred to as "Johns Hopkins"). Also named as a defendant was Schindler Elevator Com pan y, an elevator maintenance company with which Johns Hopkins had contracted, about two months before the accident, to service and maintain the elevators. Johns Hopkins did not file a cross-claim against Schindler. The basic allegation lodged against the defenda nts was that their negligent failure to heed numerous warnings

-2regardin g the malfunctioning elevator led to Mrs. Correia's injuries. Evidence

presented at trial tended to support this allegation, indicating that the defenda nts were alerted to the worn condition of certain elevator parts and failed to respond in a diligent manner. After the evidentiary portion of the trial, the jury was instructed as follows:

"The owner of a passenger elevator, in this case, Johns Hopkins is the owner of the passenger elevator, is bound to exercise to the highest degree . . . care and skill and diligence, practicable under the circumstances to guard against injury to individuals riding on these elevators. This rule of law applies to the owner of the elevator only. It does not apply to the service company Schind ler."

The jury was also advised that "[e]ach defendant is entitled to a separate consid eration." The verdict sheet reflected this separate considerati on by asking the jury to consider independently whether Schindler or Johns Hopkins had acted neg ligen tly. Counsel for Johns Hopkins objected to the jury instruction on the ground that the higher standard of care should apply only to attendant operated elevators, not to passenger operated elevators like the one involved in the incident with Mrs. Correia. He argued that the case relied on by the trial judge to fashion the instruction, O'Neill & Com pany v. Crumm itt , 172 Md. 53, 190 A. 763 (1937), was "factually very distinguishable" because:

"In that case, which was 68 years ago, there was actually a person, a human being, in the elevator operating the elevator, having the

-3elevator go up and down. And the court at that time saw fit to treat that circumstance as the elevator owner, the elevator operator, was as a common carrier, and, therefore, posed a duty of the highest degree of care and skill and diligence practicable under the circumstances to avoid injury to the person in the elevator. . . . "The thing that distinguishes that, because this did not have individual human beings in the elevator operating [it], should be distinguished from a common carrier case, it's not applicable on that basis to an automatic operation of elevators. I think it highlights, poses more duty on Johns Hopkins than it does on the elevator expert. "I look at the evidence in the case, it is clearly shown, Hopkins, which it was its duty to delegate for legal purposes. They can certainly obtain other people who are experts to work on the elevators, and I think that is another basis for objecting to this instruction, and the reason why this instruction shouldn't be given."

At no point did counsel for Johns Hopkins object to the reasonab le care standard applied to Schindler or request that Schindler be subjected to a higher standard of care. The Circuit Court decided that the heightened standard of care for elevator owners was "still good law" and overruled Johns Hopkins's objections. The jury determined that Johns Hopkins was negligent, awarded Mrs. Correia $264,500, and jointly awarded Mr. and Mrs. Correia $35,500 for loss of consortium. The jury found that Schindler was not negligent. Johns Hopkins appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguin g that, with respect to the heightened standard of care, previous Maryland cases were distinguishable and that, even if Maryland case law was not sufficiently distinguishable, the prior Mar yland cases imposing a heightened standard of care

-4upon owners and operators of elevators were "outdated" and "no longer approp riate." (Appellants' brief in the Court of Special Appea ls at 8-9). Johns Hopkins argued that it "should have been held to a standard of reasonab le care." ( Id. at 13). The principal reasons underlying this argument were that "human attendants" hired and trained by elevator owners to operate elevators are no longer used, that now elevators are "automa tic and . . . operated by the passen gers," and that the owners of modern buildings, instead of being experts "in the inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement or safety of elevato rs," hire independent contractors "to ensure that the elevators operated safely and effect ively." ( Id. at 8-10). Johns Hopkins also raised in the Court of Special Appea ls two evidentiary issues which were not included in the certiorari petition and, therefore, are not before this Court. The plaintiffs did not appeal the judgment in favor of Schindler Elevator Com pan y. Moreover, Johns Hopkins in the Court of Special Appea ls raised no issue about the jury instructions with respect to Schindler or the judgment in favor of Schindler. The Court of Special Appea ls affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that the high standard of care reflected in the jury instruction was supported by several Court of Appea ls decisions. Johns Hopkins v. Correia , 174 Md.App. 359, 921 A.2d 837 (2007). The Court of Special Appea ls held that there was "no principled reason why the duty owed to an elevator passenger should be reduced simply because of technological advan ces." Johns Hopkins v. Correia, supra, 174 Md.App. at 378, 921

-5A.2d at 849. Johns Hopkins filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, presenting the following issues:

"a. Whether the Court of Special Appea ls erred as a matter of law when it affirmed the trial court's decision to instruct the jury that Johns Hopkins, the elevator owner, owed Mrs. Correia, the elevator passenger, `the highest degree of care and skill and diligence, practicable under the circumstances to guard against injury'? "b. Whether the Court of Special Appea ls erred as a matter of law when it applied a different standard of care

Download Johns Hopkins v. Correia.pdf

Maryland Law