Olds v. Wood, 4313
| Decision Date | 07 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 4313,4313 |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. OLDS AND HELEN B. OLDS, TRADING AS 'OO' BEAUTY PRODUCTS COMPANY v. MINNIE WOOD. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Walker Florance and Delmar L. Brown, for the plaintiffs in error.
Christian, Barton, Parker & Boyd and R. Harvey Chappell, Jr., for the defendant in error.
Minnie Wood filed a motion for judgment against William M. Olds and Helen B. Olds, trading as 'OO' Beauty Products Company, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries received by her as a result of a fire which allegedly occurred while the plaintiff was using 'OO' oil shampoo, a product manufactured by and purchased from the defendants.
The motion alleged that it was the duty of the defendants 'to use due and proper care in manufacture and sale of said shampoo fluid, to give proper and complete instructions as to its use, including the proper labelling thereof, so that same might safely be used for the purposes for which it was intended'; that the defendants disregarded said duties and as a proximate result plaintiff suffered personal injuries and resultant damages to the extent of $50,000. The defendants filed their answer denying the allegations.
The case was tried before a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and again upon the completion of all the evidence the defendants moved to strike on the ground of insufficiency, which motions were overruled, and proper exceptions were noted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000. A motion to set the verdict aside as being contrary to the law and the evidence was also overruled and the court, over the objection of defendants, entered judgment thereon. We granted the defendants a writ of error.
Defendants rely upon eight assignments of error. In our view of the case it is only necessary for us to consider one question; i.e., was there any proof of actionable negligence on the part of the defendants?
The plaintiff's husband, Charles Wood, testified that he purchased a pint bottle of 'OO' oil shampoo from the defendants, who had manufactured it. The bottle contained these directions:
He further testified that on the same afternoon the shampoo was purchased he proceeded to heat the substance in a pan until 'lukewarm' and then began to shampoo his wife's hair by pouring the liquid on the hair and massaging her scalp. After applying the shampoo he dried plaintiff's hair with a towel and combed the hair back from her face. At this point plaintiff placed a cigarette in her mouth and struck a match 'holding it at arms length in front of her '. Upon lighting the match there was 'a flash of flame', which engulfed plaintiff in and about her hair and clothing.
The foregoing account of how the accident happened as testified to by the husband was corroborated by his wife, the plaintiff.
Plaintiff states in her brief that
A portion of the liquid remaining in the bottle was analyzed by plaintiff's witness, William R. Maynard, Jr., a chemist employed by the State of Virginia, and by defendant's witness, B. J. Peters, a chemist with Frohling and Robertson, Inc., of Richmond. All of the liquid placed in the pan was used in the shampooing operation and none was available for analysis.
Maynard testified that the flash point of the shampoo taken from the bottle was 171 degrees Fahrenheit, and Peters testified that his analysis revealed it to be 172 degrees. The chemists agreed that the one degree variation was inconsequential.
The chemists testified that 'flash point was defined as the minimum temperature where a volatile liquid will give off vapors and with an external source of ignition give a momentary flash.'
It was established on interrogatories that 'the ingredients of 'OO' oil shampoo was insecti-sol with about a teaspoon of oil of wintergreen added to five gallons. * * * ' The oil of wintergreen was for the purpose of giving a pleasant odor to the preparation.
There was no proof that the shampoo used in the operation ever reached 171 or 172 degrees Fahrenheit. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamieson v. Woodward & Lothrop
...the thinking of the Supreme Court of Appeals in the McClanahan case and better understanding of its general approach to tort problems. In Olds v. Wood33 the same judges, less one, who decided McClanahan reversed a judgment upon verdict for a plaintiff. The plaintiff's husband had purchased ......
-
Williams v. General Motors Corp.
...Elevator Co., 234 N.C. 512, 67 S.E.2d 492 (1951); Charnock v. Taylor, 223 N.C. 360, 26 S.E.2d 911 (1943). In the case of Olds v. Woods, 196 Va. 960, 86 S.E.2d 32 (1955), the Virginia court recognized the rule that a manufacturer or seller of an inherently dangerous article, or one which bec......
-
Spangler v. Kranco, Inc.
...duty of reasonable care to any person who might foreseeably be injured because of the product's negligent design or manufacture. Olds v. Wood, 196 Va. 960, 86 S. E.2d 32, 34 (1955) (dictum); Restatement (2d) of Torts §§ 388, 395, 398 (1965). While it may be said that Kranco's crane was not ......
-
Derflinger v. Ford Motor Co.
...was not negligent. Consequently, without deciding, it assumed that lack of privity was not a defense. Dicta in Olds v. Wood, 196 Va. 960, 964, 86 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1955), observed that any person can recover against a negligent manufacturer of an imminently dangerous product that causes person......