Washington Elevator and Escalator Accident Lawyer

If You Were Hurt on an Elevator or Escalator: The Legal Theories Washington Uses

An elevator or escalator injury claim in Washington usually rests on one of two legal theories, and sometimes on both. Which one fits shapes who a claim is brought against and which deadline governs it.

The first is premises liability, the area of law about the responsibility of the people who own or control a property toward those who use it. For someone hurt in a building, a premises claim generally comes down to three questions: did the owner or manager owe you a duty of care, was that duty breached, and did the breach cause your injury and the losses that followed? An injury on its own does not prove that anyone breached a duty. Whether these elements are met depends on the facts.

The second is product liability. Washington's product-liability chapter allows claims against product sellers for harm caused by a product. A product seller can include a manufacturer, in the sense the chapter uses. Section 7.72.060 of the Revised Code of Washington sets out how long sellers remain subject to that liability. This theory can come up where a door mechanism, a brake, a step or another component is claimed to have been defective. An accident does not prove a defect. A product claim still has to show a defect and that the defect caused the harm.

Some readers ask whether an elevator operator in Washington owes a heightened duty, like a common carrier. A common carrier is a business that carries the public and may be held to a higher standard of care. Whether that standard applies to a particular elevator depends on Washington's current case law and on the facts. For how these theories fit together nationally, see the site's overview of an elevator accident lawyer.

If you are unsure whether your accident points to the building, the equipment, or both, that question is often the first one a conversation with an attorney helps sort out.

What Went Wrong in Your Accident, and Why It Matters

Elevators and escalators run in hotels, shopping malls, apartment buildings, office towers, airports, hospitals and transit stations across Washington. The setting often points to who owns the equipment, who runs the building, and who services the machinery.

The way people get hurt tends to fall into a few recognizable patterns:

• A sudden drop, where the car falls unexpectedly, sometimes a short distance and sometimes farther.
• Misleveling, where the car stops above or below the floor, leaving a step-up or step-down that a rider may trip over.
• A door that closes on a person who is entering or leaving the car.
• Entrapment, meaning a person is stuck inside a stalled car, often between floors, or a hand, foot or clothing is caught in a moving part.
• An escalator step that collapses or separates, or a handrail that stops or moves at a different speed than the steps.
• A fall caused by an abrupt stop of an elevator or escalator.

A misleveled car may lead to questions about adjustment and upkeep. A collapsed escalator step may lead to questions about the part itself. For you, the physical cause, whether a mechanical failure, a maintenance lapse or a design problem, shapes which theory applies and who may be a defendant. Many people find it useful to write down what they remember about the movement of the car, the doors or the steps while the details are fresh. The site's page on escalator accidents describes those mechanisms in more detail.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Injury

Responsibility in an elevator or escalator case is often divided, and Washington law gives a way to account for that. For an injured person, identifying every party involved affects who can be asked to pay and which claim rules apply.

Property owners and building managers control the premises where the equipment runs. A premises claim against them turns on what duty they owed and whether it was met.

Manufacturers and other product sellers may face claims under Washington's product-liability chapter, which section 7.72.060 of the Revised Code of Washington time-limits, where a defective component is claimed to have contributed to the injury.

A maintenance contractor is a company hired to service, repair, adjust or inspect the equipment, separate from the building owner. A contractor may owe its own duty of care in the work it does, apart from the owner's duty, and owners, manufacturers and contractors can all appear in one claim.

Local government is the fourth category. Some elevators and escalators are in buildings run by a city, county or other local governmental entity. Claims against those entities and their officers, employees or volunteers follow a claim-presentment process under section 4.96.020 of the Revised Code of Washington, described in the next section.

Washington's fault rule allows fault to be divided rather than placed on one party alone, as discussed below. If you are trying to work out who owned, managed and serviced the equipment, the building's name, any posted permit and the incident report are common starting points, and an attorney can help trace the rest.

When the Filing Clock Runs and When It Pauses

Several Washington statutes set time limits, and more than one can apply to the same accident. Missing the one that governs a claim can end it, which is why these periods matter to an injured person.

Section 4.16.080 of the Revised Code of Washington states that "the following actions shall be commenced within three years". The list includes an action "for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated." When that three-year period begins to run in a given case is a question of Washington law applied to the facts.

For product claims, section 7.72.060 of the Revised Code of Washington provides a separate rule:

"Subject to the applicable provisions of chapter 4.16 RCW pertaining to the tolling and extension of any statute of limitation, no claim under this chapter may be brought more than three years from the time the claimant discovered or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause."

The same section adds a "useful safe life" defense. A product seller is not liable if it proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product's useful safe life had expired. If the harm was caused more than twelve years after the time of delivery, a presumption arises that the useful safe life had expired. That presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence, so it is not an absolute bar. The section also lists exceptions to the defense, including where the seller warranted that the product could be used safely for a longer period. Older equipment is common in established buildings, which is why this rule can matter.

For a child, section 4.16.190 of the Revised Code of Washington provides that if the person entitled to sue was under the age of eighteen when the claim accrued, "the time of such disability shall not be a part of the time limited for the commencement of action." The same rule covers a person who was incompetent or disabled to the degree the statute describes, or imprisoned on a criminal charge before sentencing. It applies "unless otherwise provided in this section."

For local government claims, section 4.96.020 of the Revised Code of Washington requires the claim to be presented to the agent the entity appoints to receive claims. This must happen within the applicable limitation period. No action may be commenced until sixty calendar days after the claim was first presented. The limitation period is tolled, meaning paused, during those sixty days. An action commenced within five court days after the sixty-day period has elapsed is treated as presented on the first day after it elapsed. Presenting either the standard tort claim form or the local government tort claim form satisfies the chapter.

Whether a deadline has run depends on the dates and facts of a particular case; this page does not say whether any reader's time remains. Useful dates to have on hand include the date of the accident, when the injury and its cause became known, the injured person's age at the time, and whether a public entity runs the building. An attorney can review those dates against each rule.

If You Were Partly at Fault: Washington's Comparative-Fault Rule

Insurers and property owners sometimes say the rider was partly to blame: for rushing a closing door, or for not holding the handrail. Washington law answers that concern directly.

Section 4.22.005 of the Revised Code of Washington provides that in an action based on fault, "any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery." The rule applies whether or not the claimant's fault would have been a defense or been disregarded under older law.

In plain words, if a jury found the injured person responsible for a fifth of the fault, the compensatory damages awarded would be reduced by that fifth. The claim would not be thrown out. Fault can also be divided among a property owner, a manufacturer and a maintenance contractor, as well as the injured person. How that division comes out depends on the evidence.

Compensatory damages are the money a court may award to make up for an injury. In a wrongful-death action, Washington's statute refers to economic and noneconomic damages. Which categories apply, and in what amount, depends on the facts and on how a trier of fact weighs them. Nothing here predicts any result.

If someone has suggested you were partly to blame, that suggestion alone does not end a claim under this rule. People in this position often weigh what the video, witnesses and records show about their own conduct, and an attorney can help assess how fault might be argued on those facts.

The Records That Can Show What Happened to You

What happened inside a car or on a stairway of moving steps usually has to be rebuilt from records. For an injured person, these records are often how duty, causation and losses get shown at all.

Maintenance and inspection records show who serviced the equipment, when, and what work was logged. The equipment's permit and inspection history belongs in the same category. If a log shows a missing entry or a recent repair, that does not by itself mean anyone was careless; it is a fact that someone will need to explain, and it stays separate from any allegation or finding of negligence. Washington's elevator code requirements are not described here, and what a given record shows depends on the record itself.

Incident reports made to the building or property manager often record the time, location and first account of the event. Photographs and video, from building security cameras or from phones, can show door timing, leveling or the condition of steps. Medical records document the injury and its treatment from the first visit forward. Names and contact details of witnesses, including other riders and staff, help fill in what the records leave out.

Injured people and families often gather these together, because the same documents speak to duty, causation and damages at once. If the records are scattered or incomplete, sorting through what exists and what they show is something a case evaluation conversation can cover. Government figures on how often these injuries occur are collected on the site's elevator accident statistics page.

If an Elevator or Escalator Accident Took a Family Member's Life

When an elevator or escalator accident takes a life, Washington law decides who may bring a case and whose losses it addresses.

Section 4.20.010 of the Revised Code of Washington provides that when a death is caused by "the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another person," the deceased person's personal representative may maintain the action. For a family, that means the case is brought by the person appointed to act for the estate, not by each relative separately. The action seeks "the economic and noneconomic damages sustained by the beneficiaries" as a result of the death, the losses the surviving family members suffered, in amounts a trier of fact finds just. The section applies whether or not the death was caused in circumstances amounting to a felony.

Section 4.20.020 of the Revised Code of Washington names the beneficiaries. They are the spouse, the state registered domestic partner, and the child or children, including stepchildren. If there is no spouse, domestic partner or child, the action may be maintained for the benefit of the parents or siblings of the deceased.

The same potential defendants, comparative-fault rule and records discussed above remain relevant after a death. For a family, the first questions are often practical: who will serve as personal representative, and which relatives the statute counts. The site's page on fatal elevator accidents describes what generally follows such a death.