Summary judgment in favor of elevator company not warranted.

- In an action arising from an elevator accident, summary judgment in favor of the defendant elevator company was not warranted since there was inconsistent evidence as to the identity of the elevator at issue and as to whether the elevator may have been subjected to maintenance procedures after the accident and before the required state inspection. Lane v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 225 Ga. App. 523, 484 S.E.2d 249 (1997).

In an elevator accident, there was a question of fact as to whether the correct elevator was taken out of service and inspected immediately following the incident, as required by O.C.G.A. § 8-2-106, giving rise to a rebuttable presumption that the inspection evidence would have been unfavorable to the repair company; thus, summary judgment for the company was reversed. Hill v. Kone, Inc., 329 Ga. App. 716, 766 S.E.2d 120 (2014).

Evidence of store's failure to submit post-accident report admissible.

- In an action to recover for injuries received while attempting to board a store's elevator, evidence of the store's failure to submit a post-accident report to the Department of Labor was admissible. Ruben's Richmond Dep't Store v. Walker, 227 Ga. App. 867, 490 S.E.2d 536 (1997).

Spoliation from failure to report was factual issue.

- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellees, a transit authority and a corporation, in a suit by an escalator rider. Based on testimony from the rider's expert that the appellees' failure to properly maintain the escalator caused the incident and from an on-call mechanic who deposed that there clearly was a problem with the unit after the incident but that the mechanic did not contact an inspector despite knowing that the rider had been injured, there was a factual issue as to whether the appellees spoliated evidence by violating O.C.G.A. § 8-2-106. Thomas v. Metro. Atlanta RTA, 300 Ga. App. 98, 684 S.E.2d 83 (2009).

Trial court erred in granting a directed verdict to a landlord in the tenants' claims that the tenants were injured in a malfunctioning elevator. The landlord failed to report the incident and inspect the elevator as required by O.C.G.A. § 8-2-106, giving rise to the spoliation presumption under former O.C.G.A. § 24-4-22 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-14-22) that the evidence would have favored the tenants. Beach v. B.F. Saul Prop. Co., 303 Ga. App. 689, 694 S.E.2d 147 (2010).

Spoliation of evidence.

- When an escalator causes an injury, Georgia law requires that the escalator be placed out of service until a state authority can inspect the escalator. The Georgia Court of Appeals has concluded that a violation of O.C.G.A. § 8-2-106 is a form of spoliation, which warrants a rebuttable presumption that the spoiled evidence would have been harmful to the spoliator. Piechota v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., F.3d (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2005)(Unpublished).

No violation shown.

- Worker in a premises liability case involving an elevator did not show that the premises owner violated O.C.G.A. § 8-2-106(c); the record was silent as to whether a state inspector ever inspected the freight elevator at issue after the accident. Henson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 289 Ga. App. 777, 658 S.E.2d 391 (2008).

Cited in Peterson Properties Corp. v. Finch, 235 Ga. App. 86, 508 S.E.2d 463 (1998).

ALR.

- Liability of building owner, lessee, or manager for injury or death resulting from use of automatic passenger elevator, 99 A.L.R.5th 141.

Liability of maintainer, repairer, or installer of automatic passenger elevator for injury resulting from use of elevator, 115 A.L.R.5th 1.