Schindler Elevator Corporation v. Darren Ceasar
670 S.W.3d 577
Tex.2023Background
- Plaintiff Darren Ceasar was trapped in a Beaumont hotel elevator that ascended past his floor, stopped abruptly, shook, and left him stuck; firefighters extracted him and he later underwent back surgery and psychiatric treatment.
- Ceasar sued Schindler Elevator (maintenance contractor); hotel was dismissed on summary judgment.
- At trial Ceasar relied on (1) a res ipsa loquitur theory and (2) expert testimony that Schindler negligently maintained the SDI control board; jury returned a 10–2 verdict for Ceasar with ~ $800,000 in damages.
- Schindler appealed, arguing the res ipsa instruction lacked evidentiary support and raising other charge/evidence and discovery challenges.
- The Texas Supreme Court held the res ipsa instruction was improperly submitted (insufficient nonconclusory evidence for the first element), found the error harmful, reversed and remanded for new trial, and affirmed the trial court’s $25,000 discovery sanction against Schindler.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur could be submitted | Ceasar: elevator’s malfunction (going past floor and abrupt stop) is the kind of accident that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence; expert Freeman so testified | Schindler: evidence was legally insufficient—expert testimony was conclusory and Freeman acknowledged non-negligent causes; res ipsa inappropriate | Res ipsa instruction improperly submitted—Ceasar’s only evidence for the ‘type of accident’ element was conclusory expert testimony (no evidentiary link to facts); no evidence to support element; charge error was harmful; remand for new trial |
| Whether res ipsa error was harmless given other circumstantial/direct evidence | Ceasar: circumstantial-evidence instruction and direct evidence (service calls, SDI board history) could independently support negligence | Schindler: any error was harmless because jury could have relied on direct/circumstantial evidence and expert causation opinion | Not harmless: res ipsa lowers plaintiff’s burden and differs from circumstantial-evidence instruction; error probably caused rendition of improper verdict |
| Trial court’s mid-trial discovery order and $25,000 sanction | Ceasar: sanction appropriate; Schindler withheld policy manual and work orders then produced some mid-trial | Schindler: order and sanction improper because documents weren’t expressly requested or were not produced due to counsel reliance; discovery period rules prohibit mid-trial discovery | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; fault attributed to Schindler (party), sanction measured and not excessive; court may modify discovery control plan when justice requires |
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s denied Social Security application and prior personal-injury suit | Schindler: documents show prior neck/back complaints and undermine damages/causation | Ceasar: denial and litigation history are of little probative value and prejudicial | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; Schindler was permitted to cross-examine and elicit relevant facts without the excluded documents |
| Denial of spoliation instruction for deleted Facebook Live video | Schindler: deletion was spoliation and jury should be instructed that video would have been unfavorable to Ceasar | Ceasar: deleted for personal reasons; no showing of malicious or negligent intent to deprive evidence | Affirmed: court reasonably found evidence insufficient to establish required spoliation showing and declined to give the requested instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Mobil Chem. Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1974) (approved res ipsa instruction language and limited application of doctrine)
- Bond v. Otis Elevator Co., 388 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. 1965) (res ipsa in a free-falling elevator case)
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (unintended acceleration alone is no evidence of defect)
- Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. 1990) (articulating res ipsa elements)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. SPEP Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 572 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2019) (conclusory expert testimony is no evidence)
- TransAm. Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (standards for just discovery sanctions)
- Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (spoliation requires duty to preserve and negligent or intentional breach)