DECISION RESERVED

Evening Star, Issue 21632, 30 January 1934, Page 9

DECISION RESERVED

CLAIM AGAINST HAIRDRESSER SEQUEL TO WAVING TREATMENT Hearing was continued at a special sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon in the case in which Vera Doris Clyma, now Mrs Vera Doris Moore - , sued Miss Rita Grimmett, now Mrs Rita Jory, hairdresser, and Roland Edgar Grimmett, a builder, for the sum of £l6B ss, representing a claim made in respect of damages arising from the alleged failure of the defendants to exercise due and proper care and skill whilst conducting a permanent hair-waving process on the plaintiff, and that the latter suffered injury and pain, damage to her appearance, and incurred loss and expense, and also lost her situation. Mr T. A. Kinmont appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. D. Taylor for the defendants. Mrs Clyma, mother of the plaintiff, in evidence, said that when she approached Miss Grimmett the latter said she felt inclined to give back the fee (22s 6d) charged for the treatment, but she would have to consult her parents.

Arthur Morris Hendy said he was a hairdresser of thirty-six years’ experience, and that burning was not neces shrily due to negligence on the part of the defendant. Escape of steam was the cause of the burning, but the steam could be stopped as soon as it began to escape. Rather than run any risk, he would remove all the machines if there was any sign of escaping steam, and there was no danger at all of any burning taking place if ordinary care were exercised. Mr Hendy was examined at length regarding the apparatus used for hair waving and its operation Counsel for the defendant said that Roland Edgar Grimmett’s position in regard to the business was that during the Exhibition he financed his daughters in the business. He had paid in £2OO and had received £4O back, and counsel would bring evidence to show that he had no association with the business, and that his name should be withdrawn as one of the defendants. Counsel submitted that the claim was a most extravagant one, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything like the amount if she was entiled to recover anything. Ho also submitted that the defendants had exercised all due care and that the client undertook any risks involved in undergoing treatment. He contended that the evidence of Dr Allen showed that if the plaintiff had taken reasonable care there would not have been any ill effects as a result of the burns. Mrs Rita Jory (Rita Grimmett) said that she had been in the shop since 1926. Any repayments made to her father were not shown ■by receipts. Slip detailed what had occurred on the occasion of the visit of the plaintiff. She had prepared the latter’s hair for waving and had then left her sister to do the steaming. She (Mrs Jory) was working in the next room, which was shut off from the other by a curtain. She heard plaintiff complain about the heat and went in to see what was happening. She was there until the process was completed. At no time was plaintiff left alone during the operation either she or her sister being present all the time. Her sister treated the burns with olive oil. Evidence along similar lines was given bv defendant’s sister, L. Grimmett, who said the only way she could account for the injuries was that a small jet of steam must have escaped. She could not explain how this could hapPB T. F. Anderson, a hairdresser, said that he had had thirteen years’ experience of permanent waving. It was always a dangerous process, particularly if the subject failed to sit perfectly still. He always warned his customers, and reprimanded any who failed to sit still. He had had experience of customers being burned, some fairly severely. He could not see how the apparatus used by the defendants could have caused the injuries. The machine was a good one, and as safe in use as any other. , • , m Expert evidence was also given by 1P Robinson, a hairdresser, who said that, despite all care, burmng frequently occurred. He would not give any customer a guarantee that she would not be burned. It was not possible to get a machine which would not allow steam to escape on to a patient s head. , , , , R. E. Grimmett stated that he was not a partner in. his daughter’s ■business. , , ~ P. T. Waugh said he owned the premises in which the defendant had her -business. • The rent was always paid from .week to week. . . The Magistrate reserved his decision.