Newmark v. Gimbel's Inc.

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. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.