Harrod v. Edward E. Tower Co.
Decision Date | 05 December 1963 |
Citation | 346 Mass. 532,194 N.E.2d 392 |
Parties | George U. HARROD et al. v. EDWARD E. TOWER COMPANY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Francis W. Conlin, Worcester, for plaintiffs.
William C. O'Neil, Jr., Worcester, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
In this action Lucille Harrod (the plaintiff) seeks to recover for injury allegedly sustained by her from the use of Bressard Tiara, a hair coloring cream, which she purchased from the defendant in reliance upon certain express and implied warranties which she claims were broken. Her husband has joined in the action in a count for consequential damages. At the close of the evidence on motions by the defendant the judge directed verdicts for the defendant on all counts, and the case is here on the plaintiffs' exceptions to the allowance of the motions.
Evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs was as follows: Lucille Harrod operates a beauty shop in Worcester. On December 17, 1958, a salesman of the defendant, which is a distributor of beauty products, told her of Bressard Tiara and said 'it would be a boost to the customers in the shop' and that it was She gave him an order and on March 3, 1959, for the first time employed the product on a customer after reading the instructions which accompanied each bottle. In following them she mixed a quantity (almost one-half a Tiara pep bag) with a half ounce of hydrogen peroxide and an ounce of homogenized bleach, applying this mixture to the hair of the customer. About three minutes later the customer's head commenced to sting. The plaintiff quickly rinsed and shampooed the customer's hair. While she was engaged in the rinsing process The plaintiffs' bill of exceptions is silent on the origin of the homogenized bleach and the hydrogen peroxide. There was no evidence by way of medical testimony nor chemical analysis to support a finding that the Tiara proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. 'The plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt
...Co., 6th Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 22; Sheptur v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 6th Cir. 1958, 261 F.2d 221; Harrod et al. v. Edward E. Tower Co., 346 Mass. 532, 194 N.E.2d 392 (1963). This requirement is all the more warranted when the products involved were never meant to be used together.......
-
Chisholm v. J. R. Simplot Co.
...90 Idaho 462, 413 P.2d 183 (1966).8 Antilles Shipping Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 321 F.Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y.1970); Harrod v. Edward E. Tower Co., 346 Mass. 532, 194 N.E.2d 392 (1963); Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber & Trim Co., 29 A.D.2d 781, 287 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1968) (mem.), aff'd mem., 24 N.Y.2d 856, 30......
-
Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 86-1627
...The plaintiff has not cited any Massachusetts cases supporting the plaintiff's proposed instruction.2 See Harrod v. Edward E. Tower Co., 346 Mass. 532, 194 N.E.2d 392 (1963) (evidence that plaintiff was burned by a mixture of peroxide, bleach and hair coloring cream sold by the defendant wa......
-
Gravis v. Abbott Laboratories
... ... Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., 6th Cir. 1958, 261 F.2d 221; Harrod et al ... Page 417 ... v. Edward E. Tower Co., 346 Mass. 532, 194 N.E.2d 392 (1963). This ... ...