This action involved a tragic incident wherein Plaintiff, a minor, sustained severe injuries, amputation of his big toe, when his right shoe became entrapped between the moving step and the stationary skirt panel of the escalator at one of the major shopping malls. The escalator was equipped with brushes which were attached to the skirt just above the nose of the steps and they were designed to force people toward the center of the step.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was wearing standard Nike style rubber soled tennis shoes. While standing on the escalator step and descending from the second floor to the first floor, the rubber sole on Plaintiff’s right foot came in contact with the metal skirt panel. The increased friction between the shoe and the panel turned Plaintiff’s foot clockwise and his foot was grabbed and pulled down into the gap between the step and the skirt panel.

Step or skirt panel entrapments are the second most common cause of escalator accidents and are the most common cause of serious injury accidents. Despite prior knowledge of entrapments accidents, the Defendant Shopping Mall Store failed to install any safety devices on their escalators prior Plaintiff’s injury.

Step entrapments occur when there is an excessive gap between the steps and theskirt panel, when the skirt panel is not adequately lubricated and the strength of the skirt allows for deflection. An entrapment occurs when the soft soled shoe is heated and softened by the friction against the stationary skirt. If the gap is sufficient to allow for rotation of the foot back and down as the step moves forward, the shoe with the foot is pulled into the gap. The movement forward wedges the shoe deeper into the crevice. The
skirt panels are attached with metal brackets every four to six feet. Plaintiff’s foot apparently was pulled in mid span between brackets. Once solidly in the gap, Plaintiff’s foot
headed at about 18 inches a second toward one of the brackets. When the shoe and foot reached and passed the bracket, the foot was crushed. Plaintiff’s foot had reached the
bottom of the escalator when his foot was finally extricated.

Failure to Warn

Defendant Shopping Mall relied upon the posted warning signs to insulate itself from liability. The signs however did not provide adequate notice of the potential catastrophe that awaited the unsuspecting child like Plaintiff.

The sign simply had a depiction of a Mother and a child holding hands which showed them standing adjacent with arms held out at 45 degree angles. However, the steps for the subject escalator were only 24 inches wide. There was no physical way that the method of riding depicted in the warning could occur on a 24 inch step without forcing
the child to stand on the side. Additionally, the sign instructed the rider to hold the handrail and avoid the sides. A child such as the Plaintiff would have to stand at or near the side of the escalator in order to hold onto the handrail.

Negligent Maintenance

In addition to the lack of warning, records relating to the subject escalator, painted a picture of shoddy maintenance. The subject accident was waiting to happen. Interestingly, after Plaintiff’s accident, Defendant contracted to spend a large sum of money install skirt brushes.

Defendant maintained no records that measured the skirt stiffness or the gap clearance on the subject escalator and the maintenance records lacked detail as to the specific condition of their escalators.

A review of Defendant’s records revealed that there were continuous problems with the subject escalator in the months leading up to the accident, including multiple entrapments and scraping and tracking problems.