DAMAGES AWARDED

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 133, 2 December 1942, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

ILLNESS CAUSED BY HAIR DYE

A decision in favour of the plaintiff was given by Mr. Justice Johnston m the Supreme Court yesterday in a case in which Nell Barnes, cook, of Wellington, sued Sidney Roscoe, hairdresser, of Wellington, for damages, alleging that an illness which followed the application of Inecto hair dye by the defendant was the result of negligence on his part. The claim was for £300 general damages and £189 8s special damages, and His Honour awarded the plaintiff £150 general damages and £187 Is 4d special damages. The defence to the allegations of negligence was that the plaintiff appreciated the danger of not having a test made before the, dye, was applied to sec if she was allergic to it, and that she voluntarily accepted the risk attendant on the treatment. After hearing the evidence, his Honour said it had been proved quite clearly that the plaintiff had suffered poisoning by the use of the dye applied by the defendant. There was no question at all that the dye contained a very dangerous drug that was in some cases particularly dangerous if applied to the skins of certain persons. That that was so was proved by the publication of the manufacturers, who took care to protect themselves from claims for damages. The only point really at issue in the case was whether the plaintiff agreed to take the risk of being allergic to the dye. She was entitled when she went to the defendant to assume that he would exercise due care in whatever treatment he gave her. Certain safeguards were required in the use of the preparation, and failure to take such safeguards would be negligence. The defendant's duty in the present case was to have taken a test. He had got to set up an agreement, express or implied that the plaintiff knew andi agreed to take the risk of having the dye applied without a previous test. In his Honour's view, the defendant's real reason for not making a test was because the plaintiff had said she had previously used Inecto without suffering any ill effects, "I prefer the evidence of the plaintiff," said his Honour, "and I find that there was no agreement and that there was negligence in not taking the test." Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, F. C. Spratt, with him Mr. E. S. Tuckwell, for the defendant.