Lifts are no longer a luxury in Kuwaiti buildings. They are part of daily life in residential blocks, office towers, malls and hospitals. With that comes a steady stream of falls, entrapments and door injuries, and one very practical question: who is responsible, and who pays? This article sets out the general principles that govern lift accidents under Kuwaiti law and what an injured person should do to protect their claim.
Common Causes of Lift Accidents and Entrapments
The technical cause usually points to the party at fault, which is why courts and court-appointed experts start there:
- Neglected periodic maintenance, or cosmetic visits with no real inspection of critical parts.
- Worn cables and brake systems that are not replaced in time.
- Faulty door sensors, causing doors to close on people or to open when the car is not level with the floor.
- Power failures with no working emergency lowering or rescue arrangement.
- Overloading beyond the rated capacity, particularly during moving and furniture transport.
- Unlicensed modifications to the controller or mechanical parts, or non-conforming spare parts.
The Building Owner as the Person in Charge of the Installation
It is a settled principle that whoever holds effective control over a thing and benefits from it bears the burden of the harm it causes. A lift is by nature a machine requiring special care, and the building owner is in principle the person in charge of keeping and operating it. Liability is therefore presumed against the owner for harm suffered by users, whether the harm arises from collapse, a defect in the installation, or poor maintenance and operation.
The practical value of this principle is that the victim usually does not have to prove a specific fault inside the machine room or the control panel, which would be technically impossible. It is enough to show that the harm was caused by the lift. The person in charge must then exonerate himself by proving an external cause, such as force majeure, the victim's own fault, or the act of a third party. This allocation of the burden of proof is the single most important point for an injured person to understand.
The Maintenance Company and How Liability Is Divided
The maintenance company's liability operates on two levels. It is contractual towards the owner or owners' association, because it undertook periodic visits, inspection, repair and reporting; breach of those undertakings makes it answerable for the consequences. It is also tortious towards the injured person, who is not a party to the contract yet may sue whoever's technical fault caused the injury.
In practice liability is often shared: the owner as the person in charge, sometimes for deferring maintenance on cost grounds; the maintenance contractor for technical shortcomings; the installer for defective execution or departure from the manufacturer's specifications; and the importer or agent for a defect in the product or spare parts. The court may apportion liability between them according to each party's proven contribution, and a party who pays may recover against the true wrongdoer. For more detail, see our articles on maintenance and operation contracts and on product and supplier liability for defective products; those rules apply here without needing to be restated.
Owners' Association, Permits and Periodic Inspection
In a building divided into multiple owned units the lift is a common part, and its management falls on the owners' association or the appointed building manager. Failure to arrange maintenance, or a manager's failure to follow up the contract and report faults, may create liability of its own. The fact that some owners have not paid their share is no answer to an injured user.
Operating a lift also carries administrative requirements: installation and operating permits, periodic inspection, and a safety certificate issued by the competent authorities, with a valid certificate displayed in the car. Because these technical requirements and their renewal intervals are set and changed by the competent authorities, we advise confirming the exact requirements and dates directly with them rather than relying on general information. What is legally clear is that operating a lift without a valid certificate is strong evidence of negligence when an accident occurs.
Entrapment Cases
Entrapment is no less serious than a fall, especially for children, the elderly, cardiac patients, or where ventilation is poor. Whoever runs the building must provide a working means of communication and prompt rescue, calling the Fire Force where needed, and must avoid improvised extraction attempts that can make things worse. A trapped person may claim not only for bodily harm but also for the fright and psychological harm suffered, since recoverable damage is not limited to physical injury.
What an Injured Person Should Do, and the Claim Itself
Prompt documentation often decides the case. We recommend:
- Filing an incident report with the competent authorities rather than settling for a verbal understanding with the owner.
- Photographing the lift, the doors, the car and the displayed inspection certificate before repairs change the scene.
- Recording the details of witnesses and building staff.
- Obtaining medical reports, any disability assessment, and keeping treatment invoices.
- Seeking to preserve the maintenance log, the maintenance contract and visit reports, which are usually the real key to proving negligence.
A claim may cover material damages (treatment, transport, damaged property), moral damages for pain and psychological impact, loss of earnings from time off work, and future treatment costs where the injury has lasting effects. The court will normally appoint a technical expert to identify the cause of the failure and each party's contribution, which makes legal representation during the expert stage decisive.
Criminal Exposure and Insurance
Alongside compensation, an incident may give rise to criminal exposure where negligence causes injury or death, or where a lift is operated in breach of safety and licensing conditions; that assessment lies with the Public Prosecution and the criminal court on the proven facts. In practice there is often insurance on the building or liability cover held by the maintenance company, so the insurer should be notified early and the limits and exclusions reviewed. Insurance does not absolve the responsible party; it determines who actually pays.
A Prevention Checklist
- A written maintenance contract with a clear term, visit schedule and obligations, plus documented reports for every visit.
- A preserved maintenance log and archived inspection reports and safety certificates.
- Any fault met with immediate shutdown and a warning notice, not temporary operation.
- A working emergency phone and backup lighting inside the car.
- Respect for the rated load, genuine spare parts, and no unlicensed modifications.
- Training building guards in correct rescue procedure and when to call the Fire Force.
Conclusion
Victims of lift accidents are often let down by the belief that they must prove a technical fault they can never reach. In reality, the general principles of liability for buildings and for things in one's custody usually work in their favour, provided the incident is properly documented and action is taken quickly.
This article is general information and is not a substitute for legal advice on your specific facts. If you have been injured in a lift accident or entrapment, or you are an owner, building manager or maintenance company facing a claim, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm will be glad to review your file and explain your legal position and your options for settlement or litigation.
