NEWMARK V. GIMBEL'S INC.
258 A.2d 697 (1969)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a products liability action. Gimbel's (D) beauty parlor
operator appealed from an order which reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that
D was not liable for damage to Newmark's (P) hair and scalp allegedly caused by a product
used in giving a permanent wave.
FACTS: P went to the beauty parlor where she inquired of Valante about a permanent wave.
He told her that her fine hair was not right for the special permanent and that she needed a
'good' permanent wave. P agreed to accept the wave suggested by him. P relied on his
judgment as to what was good for her hair. 'Helene Curtis Candle Wave' was applied with
cotton and the hair was rolled section by section. P experienced a burning sensation on the
front part of her head. Valante added more cream along the hairline and this gave some
relief but after a few minutes P told him that it was burning again. It was alleviated when
Valante brought her to a basin and rinsed her hair in lukewarm water. P was eventually put
under the dryer where she remained for about 25 minutes. The burning sensation returned and
Valante reduced the heat of the dryer thereby giving her partial relief. That evening her
head reddened, and during the following day her entire forehead was red and blistered. A
large amount of hair fell out when it was combed. Valante gave her, without charge, a
conditioning treatment which he told her is given when the hair is dry. P testified that it
made her hair feel singed at the hairline. P consulted a dermatologist who diagnosed her
condition as contact dermatitis of the scalp and loss of hair resulting therefrom. The sole
cause of her condition was the permanent wave solution. When he last saw her on December 13,
1963 the loss of hair on the top of her head was still present and he could not estimate the
time it would take for replacement. The solution was made by Helen Curtis and the label
contained a caveat for the beauty operator. P did not see the label but had had four other
permanent waves without any ill effects. The trial court dismissed P's claim for warranty in
that D was rendering a service and not making a sale. The Appellate Division reversed. D
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment