PERMANENT WAVE BURNS

Evening Star, Issue 21638, 6 February 1934, Page 10

PERMANENT WAVE BURNS

ACTION AGAINST HAIRDRESSER SUCCEEDS DAMAGES SOUGHT “GROSSLY EXCESSIVE " A claim against a hairdresser by a client who suffered burns while undergoing an operation for a permanent wave was the subject of a reserved decision delivered by Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M., this morning. The case was one in which Vera Doris Clyma (subsequently Mrs Vera Doris Moore) sued Rita Grimmett (subsequently Mi's Rita Jqry) and her father, Roland Edgar Grimmett, for £l7l Bs, made up as follows:—Loss of wages for three months, £l3; medical expenses, £8 8s; general damages, £l5O. Mr Bartholomew found that Mrs •lory had been negligent iu conducting the operation, and gave judgment against her for £26 Ss, pointing out that the claim tor general damages was grossly excessive. The defendant’s father was dissociated from the action. .Judgment was given for £3 as loss of wages, His Worship stating earlier in the hearing that while three months’ wages were claimed from November 3, the plaintiff was married on December 1. and could not claim after that date, as she suffered no loss. His Worship said that the' defendants were sued as being partners in a hairdressing business. The evidence, however, failed to establish that Mr Grimmett was a partner, which left the claim against Mrs .lory to be considered. His Worship, after traversing the evidence, stated that in this case no explanation or warning as to the possibility of burns was given to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff’s evidence that she complained several times during the operation was supported by the evidence of the defendant’s sister, but no remedial stops apart from the first packing were taken, and it was to be noted that five separate burns wore inflicted. The evidence of all the experts showed that the ■ operator should be particularly alert and on the watch for any suggestion of heat, and that prompt remedial measures should be taken. The defendant’s conduct of the operation had not come up to the standard required by her own witnesses. On the first complaint the machine should have been taken off and the cotton wool removed, and fresh cotton wool inserted, and on further complaints of heat proper remedial steps should have been taken. Finally, when the steamer was removed from the back of the head the machine should have been removed, as the evidence showed that switching off the current was not a sufficient precaution, as the heat generated in the heater would last for a matter of minutes. The defendant failed to exercise proper care and skill in this respect, and was liable for the injuries caused by her negligent treatment. The defendant was entitled to recover for loss of employment for three weeks (£3) and also medical expenses of £8 Bs. . In addition, £l5O was claimed as general damages for pain and suffering and “damages to her appearance.” This claim, His Worship held, was grossly excessive. Even if the scars on the scalp were permanent they were covered by the hair and were in _ a totally different category to a facial disfigurement, and it could not he properly said that her appearance was damaged. His Worship considered £ls an adequate, compensation. Judgment would accordingly be given for £26 8s and costs against Mrs Jory. Court costs of £2 3s, witnesses’ expenses of £1 18s, and solicitor’s fee of £4 3s were allowed.