Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Elisa SALVIETERRA, et al., respondents, v. Mary Ellen HAVEKOTTE, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, (Honorof, J.), dated April 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff Elisa Salvieterra and against them in the principal sum of $323,000, and in favor of the plaintiff Nelson Zumaran and against them in the principal sum of $25,400.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Elisa Salvieterra, a housekeeper for the defendants, sustained second and third degree burns when they directed her to manually clean their self-cleaning oven. The defendants allegedly provided her with an old pair of gloves and “Easy-Off” oven cleaner which penetrated the gloves causing her injuries.
The defendants breached their duty to provide the injured plaintiff with a safe place to work by directing her to clean the oven with defective gloves (see, Adlam v. Konvalinka, 291 N.Y. 40, 50 N.E.2d 535). A reasonable inspection would have revealed that the gloves were not suited for the task (see, Adlam v. Konvalinka, supra).
The trial court properly charged the jury with both assumption of risk and inherent compulsion. The plaintiff established that she was directed by her employer to do the act which caused her injury and that she was under an inherent compulsion to comply with that direction (see, Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 301 N.Y. 182, 93 N.E.2d 629). We further find that the dual jury charges of assumption of risk and inherent compulsion were proper and did not confuse the jury (see, Porter v. Avlis Contracting Corp., 57 A.D.2d 222, 394 N.Y.S.2d 226).
The jury's finding that the defendants were 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Ruscito v. Early, 253 A.D.2d 461, 676 N.Y.S.2d 649). In addition, the damages award did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see, CPLR 5501; Donofrio v. Montalbano, 240 A.D.2d 617, 659 N.Y.S.2d 484).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 05, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)