The Advocate General of the Versailles Court of Appeal demanded a fine of at least 60,000 euros on Friday April 15 against the elevator operator Otis after the death of a 7-year-old child in one of his elevators in Mantes-la-Jolie (Yvelines), in 2015.
Read alsoChild died in the elevator: the investigation entrusted to an investigating judge
Prosecuted for “manslaughter“, Otis had already been sentenced to a fine of 60,000 euros in 2018, a conviction confirmed on appeal. But the judgment was quashed in 2021 after the company appealed for a procedural defect. The case was therefore retried on Friday at Versailles.
“Criminally culpable negligence”
On October 10, 2015, Othmane, 7, went shopping in the popular district of Val-Fourré, in Mantes-la-Jolie, south-west of Paris. While taking the elevator, the wheel of his scooter got stuck in the doors and the handlebars then got stuck under his neck, causing him to asphyxiate. “We have recklessness, criminally culpable negligencefrom Otis, said Friday the general counsel, for whom the company has not implemented everything in its power to avoid the accident. The Advocate General notably pointed the finger at “frequent but not permanent adjustmentsmade by Otis on the elevator doors. “Neither the HLM lessor nor Otis took the decision to decommission it.»
For her part, the elevator operator’s lawyer pleaded that Otis organized recurring checks, while denouncing the damage to the doors by the inhabitants. “It’s my son who died, he’s not a cat“said the mother of the child at the bar, a large photo of her son in her arms. “He would have been 14 todayshe added, tears in her voice, looking Otis’ rep in the eye. The latter argued that the doors were not faulty, contrary to the findings of the expert.
Read alsoLille: a woman found dead in the elevator of a hospital
Otis had, several weeks before the accident, sent an estimate to the lessor to change the doors of the elevator, remained unanswered. “There is no problem, but we advise to change the doors“, quipped one of the lawyers of the Othmane family, Charles Morel, noting the “contradictionsfrom Otis’ rep. The social landlord, now liquidated and released at first instance, was omnipresent in the speech of the representative of Otis, who affirmed not to deny the civil liability of the company but wished that it be shared between the two organizations. The decision will be known on June 24.