Hospital sues over elevator defect

The University of Maryland Medical System Corp. is seeking $3.6 million in damages for a “catastrophic mechanical failure” that kept six elevators grounded for three weeks in August 2004.

According to the suit filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, the culprit was a latent defect in springs used in an elevator modernization project in the north section of the University of Maryland Hospital.

The complaint includes counts against Arundel Elevator Company Inc., subcontractor Magil Corp. and architect/consultant Van Deusen & Associates, which was to inspect the elevators, for breach of warranty, negligence and breach of contract.

“It’s a warranty issue with Magil Corporation, and there is no basis for negligence nor breach of contract on Arundel Elevator,” said Tim Marshall, resident agent for Arundel.

The attorney who filed the complaint for UMMS, Jennifer R. Lazenby of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP, did not return calls for comment on Tuesday.

UMMS said it took the six elevators in the north campus out of service after a spring in elevator N4 “fractured and jammed the brakes,” causing the mechanical failure.

The hospital and the state of Maryland discovered a similar defect in the springs used in the other five elevators, forcing the hospital to shut them down, according to the suit filed Aug. 23.

UMMS alleges that Magil admitted responsibility, but has failed to reimburse the system. However, it says all three defendants are responsible for the damage and the costs associated with repairing the elevators.

Van Deusen could not be reached for comment, and a Magil representative contacted had no comment on the matter.

According to the pleadings, on Nov. 30, 2000, UMMS entered into a contract with Arundel, a Glen Burnie company formed in 1992, for elevator modernization and maintenance. The system entered into a subsequent maintenance contract with Arundel on July 1, 2004, almost two months before the mechanical failure occurred. Elevator modernization refers to a process in which most of the original elevator components are retained while other parts are upgraded.

In the suit, UMMS claimed that Arundel contracted with Magil to provide parts for the modernization, including the springs. Van Deusen, a consultant for building transportation systems headquartered out of Livingston, N.J., was chosen as architect of the project and was to design, inspect and test the elevators.

Van Deusen’s negligence “created a clear risk of death or personal injury that required correction and remediation of the dangerous condition of the N4 elevator system and UMMS’s other elevators,” according to the suit.