Givens v. Spalding Cloak Co.
| Decision Date | 11 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 17810.,17810. |
| Citation | 63 S.W.2d 819 |
| Parties | AMANDA F. GIVENS, RESPONDENT, v. SPALDING CLOAK COMPANY, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County. — Hon. Daniel E. Bird, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cowgill & Popham and John F. Cook for respondent.
Harzfeld, Beach & Steeper, William B. Dickinson and Martin B. Dickinson, of counsel, for appellant.
Plaintiff's action is to recover damages for alleged burns to her scalp charged to have been negligently inflicted by defendants in giving plaintiff a hair-dressing known among the ladies as a "permanent wave," or, as it is frequently called, a "permanent." She sued for $7500 and recovered a verdict and judgment for $3000 against Spalding Cloak Company, but the jury found in favor of defendant Brisboise.
The Spalding Cloak Company duly appealed; the plaintiff took the initial steps for an appeal against defendant Brisboise, but failed to perfect same; so the case now stands on the Cloak Company's appeal.
The petition alleged:
The Spalding Cloak Company, admitting it was a corporation, filed a general denial as did also the defendant, Brisboise.
The record discloses the following with reference to the facts leading up to and surrounding the administration of the treatment and the infliction of the alleged burns:
The actual work of giving the hair treatment and permanent was done by Jean Kernanen, a young woman employee (of whom will appear later). The defendant, Mrs. Pearl Griffith Brisboise was the "manager" of the beauty parlor in which the permanent was given, but she did not come into the parlor until after the hair-dressing and permanent had been given, and the plaintiff customer was ready to depart.
The treatment and permanent were given in the forenoon of January 14, 1929. Plaintiff testified that she had known the operator, Miss Kernanen, for some time before that, "it might have been five or six years." Plaintiff was forty-three years old and had been a resident of Kansas City for twenty-five years. She had obtained elsewhere other hair-treatments, including two permanents, from Miss Kernanen prior to this, and, knowing or having her residence telephone number, made an appointment with her, over her said residence 'phone, for the 14th of January, 1929, at the Spalding Store "to give me a permanent in the morning." Plaintiff went to the Spalding Cloak Company's store early in the morning of the 14th to get the permanent. She had never been to the store before, though, as heretofore stated, she knew Miss Kernanen, having formerly met her in two other beauty parlors and had received two permanents from her before. Upon entering the Spalding Cloak Company's store, plaintiff did not know where the beauty parlor therein was located. So she asked what she calls a "floor-walker, or a clerk or some employee therein, where the beauty parlor was?" He told her and gave her a printed card, on which was printed the following:
"VITA TONIC PERMANENT WAVES
$10.00 or, in clubs of two or more $8.50
SPALDING BEAUTY SALON
on Mezzanine Floor
Pearl Griffith, Manager
1010 Main Street Phone Main 5221
Barber in Attendance
`Our Special Service
Shampoo and Marcel
Bobbed Hair $1.00 and $1.25
We Invite You to Take Advantage of Your
Charge Account.'"
The beauty parlor was on the balcony or mezzanine floor in the store, one short flight upstairs, and an inquiry as to whether it was separated from the rest of the store did not disclose any responsive or illuminating answer, other than: "I would say it was separated because I have no elevator service."
Plaintiff found the young woman Jean Kernanen in the beauty parlor and told her she "wanted a permanent, a nice deep wave."
At this point in her testimony, she was asked:
She said she `never saw anyone so nervous.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. James, 97-CV-2042.
...... under some kind of an electrical machine to curl her hair." Id. at 514. A similar procedure was used in Givens v. Spalding Cloak Co., 228 Mo.App. 169, 63 S.W.2d 819, 821 (1933). Electrically heated curlers, and metal rods with electric energy steam were used in Chauvin v. Krupin, 4 Cal.......
- Givens v. Spalding Cloak Co.
- State v. Bird
-
Epps v. Ragsdale
...and hair loss when carefully applied by a beautician. See Glossip v. Kelly, 228 Mo.App. 392, 67 S.W.2d 513, and Givens v. Spalding Cloak Co., 228 Mo.App. 169, 63 S.W.2d 819. In those cases the plaintiffs, injured by permanent wave treatments, properly submitted on res ipsa loquitur. Logic c......