Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Regina Jett v. Yale New Haven Hospital
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On October 27, 2007 the plaintiff Regina Jett was injured as she exited from an elevator at the East Pavilion of the defendant Yale New Haven Hospital when the doors of elevator closed on her striking her body. With the plaintiff was her son Equan Coleman.1
The defendant has admitted that it owned, controlled and maintained the elevator. Nor does the defendant deny that the plaintiff was an invitee visiting her father who was a patient on the ninth floor of the hospital. However, in order for the plaintiff to recover as an invitee, it is incumbent upon her to prove the defendant either had actual notice of the specific unsafe condition which caused the injury or constructive notice of it. Baptise v. Balter Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 140 (2002).
In this case, the plaintiff relies on constructive notice of the malfunction of the safety edges on the elevator doors. The evidence was that the elevator was old having been installed 57 years before the incident and that there were continuous problems with it.
Thomas Bender, an employee of the defendant in charge of maintenance, testified that the elevators were inspected on a weekly basis. However, that inspection was limited to ascertaining if the light bulbs and emergency buttons were working. The inspection did not include the safety edge of the doors which would have prevented the plaintiff from getting injured.
“Constructive notice is premised on the policy determination that under certain circumstances a person should be treated as if he had actual knowledge so that one should not be permitted to deny knowledge when he is acting so as to keep himself ignorant ․ Therefore, when a possessor of land [or property] fails to make or to have made a reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the dangerous condition, his negligent ignorance is, in the eyes of the law, equivalent to actual knowledge.” Warren v. Stoncliff, 157 Conn. 216, 219 (1968). In this case, the plaintiff has proven the defendant had constructive knowledge of the failure of the safety edge of the doors.2
The plaintiff sought treatment to both of her arms, left hip and her back immediately from the defendant at its Urgent Care Center. The defendant verified the plaintiff's arm injuries. The defendant billed the plaintiff $1,292.07. Thereafter, the plaintiff was treated by Dr. Alfred Ranieri, Jr. and he billed for his services $2,076.00. The plaintiff incurred a total of $3,368.07 in medical bills.
The court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $7,500 for her pain and suffering.
Judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $3,368.07 for economic damages and $7,500 for non-economic damages or a total of $10,868.07 plus taxable costs.
Robert I. Berdon
Judge Trial Referee
FOOTNOTES
FN1. The defendant contests the manner in which the accident occurred notwithstanding the written report of the defendant's own officer (J. Skibeck) made at the time of the incident which stated: “The statements I received from Jett and Coleman are consistent with the elevator malfunction I observed.” Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.. FN1. The defendant contests the manner in which the accident occurred notwithstanding the written report of the defendant's own officer (J. Skibeck) made at the time of the incident which stated: “The statements I received from Jett and Coleman are consistent with the elevator malfunction I observed.” Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
FN2. Evidence was introduced that the defendant had a contract with Krone Elevators to maintain the elevators. The defendant offered no evidence that this service contract included reasonable inspections or whether the contract merely covered repairs reported to Krone when the elevator malfunctioned.. FN2. Evidence was introduced that the defendant had a contract with Krone Elevators to maintain the elevators. The defendant offered no evidence that this service contract included reasonable inspections or whether the contract merely covered repairs reported to Krone when the elevator malfunctioned.
Berdon, Robert I., J.T.R.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CV095030991S
Decided: August 17, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)