Queen v. Gagliola

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore HOUSE; RYAN
PartiesEvelyn QUEEN v. Nancy GAGLIOLA et al.
Decision Date19 January 1972

Page 890

292 A.2d 890
162 Conn. 164
Evelyn QUEEN
v.
Nancy GAGLIOLA et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan. 19, 1972.

[162 Conn. 165] William F. Gallagher, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was George L. Eastman,

Page 891

New Haven, for appellant (named defendant).

Andrew D. Sabetta, Derby, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before [162 Conn. 164] HOUSE, C.J., and THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, JJ.

[162 Conn. 165] RYAN, Associate Justice.

This is a personal injury action brought by the plaintiff in four counts against Nancy Gagliola, Angelo A. Gagliola and the Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. The first count alleged that the defendants Gagliola were engaged in the business of hair styling and that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of their negligence in giving her a permanent wave. In the second count it was alleged that the defendant Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., negligently sold a bottle of lotion to the defendants Gagliola which was used by them in the hair treatment administered to the plaintiff; that the defendant Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., failed to warn, by appropriate label or otherwise, of the dangerous propensities of the lotion and that its negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The third count alleged breach of warranty by the defendant [162 Conn. 166] Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. The fourth count was for breach of implied warranty by the defendants Gagliola.

The defendants Gagliola and Helene Curtis Industries denied the essential allegations of the complaint and filed special defenses alleging that any injury to the pllaintiff was the sole result of the plaintiff's own individual allergic reaction and peculiar susceptibility to the permanent wave solution, and that the defendants had no knowledge or notice of such a condition and had no reason to foresee it. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the motion of the defendant Helene Curtis Industries for a directed verdict was granted. The action against the defendant Angelo A. Gagliola was withdrawn and the fourth count was dropped by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant Nancy Gagliola on the first count. Her motion to set aside the verdict was denied and from the judgment rendered thereon she appealed to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, which affirmed the judgment. On the granting of certification, the named defendant appealed to this court.

The defendant's assignments of error are directed to the charge of the trial court. The plaintiff made the following claims of proof: On February 17, 1966, the plaintiff went to the Valley Academy of Beauty Culture in the city of Ansonia to have her hair styled in a permanent wave. The defendant Nancy Gagliola owned and operated the academy as a school, and, as part of the training program, students were permitted to give permanent waves to the public. On that day the plaintiff was given a hair wave known as the 'Elegante Permanent' for which she paid $8.50. On prior occasions the plaintiff had received similar hair waves and suffered no [162 Conn. 167] ill effects from them. The solution applied to the plaintiff's hair for the permanent wave was called 'Elegante Permanente d'Italia,' which was manufactured by Helene Curtis Industries and supplied by the manufacturer to the academy. Instructions for the giving of the permanent wave were printed on the box in which the solution was packaged and referred to more detailed directions known as Sue Cory instructions....

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 3 Mayo 1972
    ...material witness who may be the basis of the inference, but only those 'whom the party would naturally produce.' Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 168, 292 A.2d 890, 892. 'A witness who would naturally be produced by a party is one who is known to that party and who, by reason of his relati......
  • State v. Kish
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 27 Abril 1982
    ...State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 431, 365 A.2d 1135, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); see Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 169, 292 A.2d 890 (1972). It is apparent that the victim's husband was equally available to both parties; in fact, he was in the courtroom......
  • Morningside Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Enero 1972
    ...abused its discretion by changing the zone classification without complying with the comprehensive plan, the plaintiffs cannot prevail. [162 Conn. 164] There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the In this opinion the other judges concurred......
  • State v. Moynahan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 5 Abril 1973
    ...unfavorable inference under the rule as set forth in Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672, 675, 165 A.2d 598; Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 168, 292 A.2d 890; see also United States v. Gernie, 252 F.2d 664 (2d Cir.). The state revealed that it could not know to what Vernale wou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 3 Mayo 1972
    ...material witness who may be the basis of the inference, but only those 'whom the party would naturally produce.' Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 168, 292 A.2d 890, 892. 'A witness who would naturally be produced by a party is one who is known to that party and who, by reason of his relati......
  • State v. Kish
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 27 Abril 1982
    ...State v. Rosa, 170 Conn. 417, 431, 365 A.2d 1135, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 126, 50 L.Ed.2d 116 (1976); see Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 169, 292 A.2d 890 (1972). It is apparent that the victim's husband was equally available to both parties; in fact, he was in the courtroom......
  • Morningside Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 19 Enero 1972
    ...abused its discretion by changing the zone classification without complying with the comprehensive plan, the plaintiffs cannot prevail. [162 Conn. 164] There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the In this opinion the other judges concurred......
  • State v. Moynahan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 5 Abril 1973
    ...unfavorable inference under the rule as set forth in Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672, 675, 165 A.2d 598; Queen v. Gagliola, 162 Conn. 164, 168, 292 A.2d 890; see also United States v. Gernie, 252 F.2d 664 (2d Cir.). The state revealed that it could not know to what Vernale wou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT