Iviricu v. Velasco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Iviricu v. Velasco

669 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 1996 WL 106420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1996

DocketNo. 95-950

StatusPublished

This text of 669 So. 2d 337 (Iviricu v. Velasco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iviricu v. Velasco, 669 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 1996 WL 106420 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff appellant is a household employee of the defendants. She was injured attempting to clean a piece of furniture while standing in a precarious position on a bed. She stated that she had requested but been refused the use of a step ladder which would have made the task safe to perform. The defense summary judgment entered below is reversed because the record presents a triable issue as to whether the employers breached their duty to provide the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in, and reason[338]*338ably safe tools and equipment with which to work. See Zygmont v. Smith, 548 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dearing v. Reese, 519 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Barker v. Osman, 340 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and cases cited; Westberry v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 191 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 811 (Fla.1967).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff appellant is a household employee of the defendants. She was injured attempting to clean a piece of furniture while standing in a precarious position on a bed. She stated that she had requested but been refused the use of a step ladder which would have made the task safe to perform. The defense summary judgment entered below is reversed because the record presents a triable issue as to whether the employers breached their duty to provide the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in, and reason[338]*338ably safe tools and equipment with which to work. See Zygmont v. Smith, 548 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dearing v. Reese, 519 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Barker v. Osman, 340 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and cases cited; Westberry v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 191 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 811 (Fla.1967).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2368, 1996 WL 106420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iviricu-v-velasco-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack