Is there any error in instructing an elevator operator to use the utmost care and diligence?

The plaintiff contends that it was error to refuse to give an instruction requested by him which was in the following language: 'A person or a corporation operating elevators on which passengers are carried are to be treated as common carriers of passengers, and the same duties and responsibilities rest on them as to care and diligence as on the carriers of passengers by railway; though not guarantors of the absolute safety of passengers, they are required by law to use the utmost care and diligence for the safe carriage of a passenger, to provide everything necessary for that purpose and to exercise a reasonable degree of skill.' But the contention is without merit because, as hereinabove noted, the court gave instructions embodying the pertinent law which was merely restated in the instruction refused. No more was required. (Wood v. Alves Service [209 Cal.App.2d 533] Transportation, Inc., 191 Cal.App.2d 723, 732-733, 13 Cal.Rptr. 114.)