Doll v. Gladys Fuller Hair Stylists, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Doll v. Gladys Fuller Hair Stylists, Inc.

227 N.E.2d 602, 11 Ohio St. 2d 69, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 71, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 335

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 28, 1967

DocketNo. 40665

StatusPublished

This text of 227 N.E.2d 602 (Doll v. Gladys Fuller Hair Stylists, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doll v. Gladys Fuller Hair Stylists, Inc., 227 N.E.2d 602, 11 Ohio St. 2d 69, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 71, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 335 (Ohio 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The allegation in the answer “that plaintiff requested during the time said bleaching occurred that defendant’s operator continue and complete the bleaching process on that day” is not an allegation of fact which in itself would show assumption of risk. Plaintiff was not advised of the length of time it would take to complete the process or that it was to be completed two days later; nor was she warned that to complete the process on the day it was commenced might result in serious burns or that her hair would fall out.

The allegations of the answer are not such that require plaintiff to file a reply. Lovell v. Wentworth, 39 Ohio St. 614; McDonald v. Haught, 10 Ohio St. 2d 43. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmermaft, Troop, O’Neill., Herbert, SchNeider and BrowN, JJ., concur. Troop, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Matthias, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The allegation in the answer “that plaintiff requested during the time said bleaching occurred that defendant’s operator continue and complete the bleaching process on that day” is not an allegation of fact which in itself would show assumption of risk. Plaintiff was not advised of the length of time it would take to complete the process or that it was to be completed two days later; nor was she warned that to complete the process on the day it was commenced might result in serious burns or that her hair would fall out.

The allegations of the answer are not such that require plaintiff to file a reply. Lovell v. Wentworth, 39 Ohio St. 614; McDonald v. Haught, 10 Ohio St. 2d 43. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmermaft, Troop, O’Neill., Herbert, SchNeider and BrowN, JJ., concur. Troop, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Matthias, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.E.2d 602, 11 Ohio St. 2d 69, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 71, 1967 Ohio LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doll-v-gladys-fuller-hair-stylists-inc-ohio-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack