Sanders v. Clairol, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. Clairol, Inc.

2 A.D.2d 857, 155 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 857 (Sanders v. Clairol, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. Clairol, Inc., 2 A.D.2d 857, 155 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by respondent Phyllis Sanders to recover damages for personal injuries and by her husband, respondent Leonard Sanders, for medical expenses and loss of services. The injuries are alleged to have resulted from the application by appellants Kaplan and Blank, operators of a beauty salon, of a hair dye manufactured by appellant Clairol, Inc. The appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents against appellants. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. There is no evidence in this record that the product involved was inherently dangerous and poisonous when properly applied in accordance with the precautions and instructions recommended by the manufacturer, or that the manufacturer was negligent in putting upon the market a dangerous and poisonous product, or that the proprietors of the beauty salon were negligent in knowingly using a poisonous product dangerous to human beings. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Action by respondent Phyllis Sanders to recover damages for personal injuries and by her husband, respondent Leonard Sanders, for medical expenses and loss of services. The injuries are alleged to have resulted from the application by appellants Kaplan and Blank, operators of a beauty salon, of a hair dye manufactured by appellant Clairol, Inc. The appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents against appellants. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed. There is no evidence in this record that the product involved was inherently dangerous and poisonous when properly applied in accordance with the precautions and instructions recommended by the manufacturer, or that the manufacturer was negligent in putting upon the market a dangerous and poisonous product, or that the proprietors of the beauty salon were negligent in knowingly using a poisonous product dangerous to human beings. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 857, 155 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-clairol-inc-nyappdiv-1956.