Hairdresser’s negligence led to badly-damaged hair

Our client attended a hairdressing salon, having arranged the appointment in advance.  Our client wanted her roots re-touched to match her blonde hair colour.  Her hair was all one length and in very good condition.  As our client travels a lot, she does not have a regular hairdresser and it was her first visit to this particular salon.

 

The salon owner produced a colour chart and recommended a colour.  Once the colour was agreed, the owner and assistant went through to the back of the salon to mix the colour.  The owner advised the assistant to put the dye on our client’s roots and then on the remainder of her hair, i.e. covering hair that had already been coloured when our client simply wanted her roots re-touching.  The colour applied was an eggshell white with green tint rather than the purple colour she was more used to.  However, it was her first visit to this salon and she assumed a different product was being used.  The salon did not advise our client how long the treatment would last.

 

After half an hour, our client’s hair was washed.  Our client went through to the main salon to have her hair cut.  The assistant dried our client’s hair.  Our client could see that her hair was a green colour and queried it.  The salon owner advised it simply needed conditioning treatment.  The owner went to the back of the salon and advised our client that the conditioning treatment was being applied.  When our client asked what colour her hair would be after further treatment, she was advised “the same as before.”  Our client was also advised that her hair would be in better condition than before.

 

The assistant was instructed to comb the conditioning treatment through and to scrub at our client’s hair to ensure the colour penetrated her hair.  When our client asked why her hair had turned green, she was told that it was her own fault because of the colour she’d used previously.  After 30 – 40 minutes the second treatment was washed off.  The owner then started cutting our client’s hair.  Not happy with the way it was being cut, our client asked the owner to stop.  She asked him to stop at least five times.  The owner did not stop until our client stood up.

 

Our client was left with very dry and unconditioned hair, with layers approximately 6 cm in length.  Her hair was left with weak spots on the hair shaft, and frayed ends.  It had also been dyed brown when our client was very specific about wanting her hair to be blonde to match the existing colour. 

 

The damage to our client’s hair was caused by the hairdresser’s negligence in that they:

 

·         failed to carry out a strand test,

·         failed to carry out a skin test and failure to check that our client was not at risk of an allergic reaction,

·         failed to carry out a porosity test,

·         failed to employ suitably competent, qualified hairdressers to carry out the colouring process,

·         left the solution on for too long,

·         failed to carry out regular checks on the hair whilst the solution was on it.

 

The salon denied liability.  The owner claimed that our client had wanted her hair to be a “rich chocolate brunette”, denied that our client’s hair turned green and said he’d used a feathering technique and point cutting and club cutting when cutting our client’s hair.  Our client’s appointment and record card did not show which product had been used.

 

A specialist trichologist’s report found that the hairdressing salon had not used the permanent dye correctly.  The dye used should not have been applied to the full head, i.e. from root to point of her hair as this subjected the previously treated hair to the incorrect colour.  A conditioner would not have any impact on the colouring used, so the second application was a dye to correct the first, incorrect application of dye.  As our client was visiting the salon for the first time, she should have had a strand test.  Once the hairdresser was made aware that the hair was an unwanted colour, they should have stopped work and performed a strand test, asking our client to return after 24 hours.

 

Our client’s job involves her being in daily contact with clients so her appearance, as a representative of her employer, needed to be smart.  Our client had to wait 12 months for the green/brown colours to grow out before any correctional colours could be put in her hair.

 

After further negotiations, Lawson-West secured compensation of £2750 in respect of the damage to our client’s hair.

Collision caused by overtaking driver led to fractured ribs and shoulder

Our client was driving her car along an A-road.  There was a car behind her.  She indicated to turn right and then began to turn right into a side road.  As she did so, the car behind attempted to overtake our client’s car and drove into her car.

 

The accident was the other driver’s fault because he:

 

·         failed to keep any or any proper lookout,

·         failed to see our client’s car,

·         failed to notice she was indicating to turn,

·         failed to notice she had slowed down so she could turn safely,

·         attempted to overtake our client’s car when it clearly unsafe to do so,

·         failed to steer or control his car or to brake to avoid the collision,

·         was in breach of duty under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Highway Code.

 

Our client sustained a fractured shoulder-blade and fractured ribs.  She attended hospital after the accident.  Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.

 

The other driver denied liability.  Lawson-West issued court proceedings to recover compensation for our client for her injuries.  As the other driver continued to deny liability, the compensation claim went to court.  It is rare for a case like this to proceed to a final Court hearing.  Due to the strong evidence of our client and witnesses the Judge found that the sole cause of the accident was that the other driver had misinterpreted what was happening ahead of him.

 

The court found that the other driver was liable and awarded compensation.  Our client was awarded agreed damages of £6700 for her pain and suffering resulting from her injuries and expenses incurred as a result of the accident.

 

Related Articles:

 

Collision caused near-fatal injuries

 

Rear End Shunt led to whiplash and a write-off

 

Rear End Shunt at junction led to back injury

Rear End Shunt led to Whiplash and Neck Injury

Our client was driving to a training course.  Two work colleagues were passengers in the car.  Our client stopped at a main roundabout, waiting for traffic to clear.  Suddenly he was rear end shunted by another car driver.

 

The accident was the other driver’s fault because he:

 

·         drove too fast;

·         failed to keep a proper look out for other vehicles;

·         failed to give way at a junction;

·         failed to stop, slow down or control his car to avoid the crash;

·         was in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highway Code.

 

Our client sustained whiplash injuries to his neck, shoulders and back and had to wear a neck brace as advised by his General Practitioner.

 

The other driver admitted liability.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim and our client was awarded £2100 in compensation for his injuries.  Lawson-West also recovered additional compensation for assistance with household chores and prescription costs.

 

Related Articles:

 

Rear End Shunt at junction caused back injury

 

Rear End Shunted at Red Traffic Lights

 

Rear End Shunt led to Whiplash and a Write-off

Jammed Lever on Work Equipment led to Hand Injury

Our client was working as a warehouse operative and was wheeling a trolley, which was half-full of stock, with a colleague.  Our client had to lift two gates using two separate levers and lifted the left hand lever of the first gate with no problem.  Shortly afterwards she pulled the right lever.  Suddenly and without warning the right lever jammed, causing her to hit her right hand against the metal structure.

 

The accident was reported to her employer and written up in the accident book.  The accident was the employer’s fault because they:

 

·         failed to maintain the work equipment in an efficient state, in efficient working order and good repair,

·         breached their duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992,

·         breached their duties under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998,

·         failed to have in place a suitable system of inspection and maintenance so that the defect would have been repaired or rectified before the accident,

·         permitted our client to use the right lever to open the gate when they knew or ought to have known it was unsafe to do so,

·         permitted or caused the right lever to become a danger and trap,

·         contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to health and safety of our client to which she was exposed whilst at work,

·         failed to provide our client with a safe place of work,

·         exposed our client to an unnecessary risk of injury.

 

Our client attended hospital after the accident as she had severely bruised her hand, which was put in a sling. She also had to take time off work because she was unable to carry out her normal duties with an injured hand.

 

The employer denied liability as they regularly maintained the gates.  However, in the case of Stark v Post Office, it was made clear that regular inspections and/or servicing of work equipment does not afford a defence in cases where employees are injured by equipment malfunction or failure.  Following a later inspection, some remedial maintenance work was done on the gates, but there was no record of what damage existed prior to the inspection. 

 

A negotiated settlement was achieved with the opponent’s Solicitors after court proceedings were commenced.

 

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £1350 in respect of our client’s injuries and compensation for our client’s loss of earnings because she had to take time off work, travel expenses to and from hospital and painkillers.

 

Related Articles:

 

Trip over wire led to elbow surgery

 

Printing caused dislocated knee

 

Weighbridge trip caused torn ligaments

Trip over Wire led to Elbow Surgery

Our client, who was employed as an administrator, was working at her usual work station.  During the afternoon, she stood up to walk out from behind her desk and tripped over a wire from a free-standing heater placed against the wall behind her chair.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The employer was at fault because:

 

·         they failed to undertake a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to health and safety of our client in breach of Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety and Work Regulations 1992;

·         they failed to ensure that our client’s workstation was suitable for the work undertaken in breach of Regulation 11(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;

·         they failed to ensure our client would be safe from the risk of falling in breach of Regulation 11(2) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;

·         they failed to ensure our client had sufficient floor area, height and unoccupied space for the purposes of health and safety and welfare in breach of Regulation 10(1);

·         they failed to keep the floor free from obstructions which might cause our client to slip, trip or fall and/or caused or permitted to be or become or remain a danger to our client in breach of Regulation 12;

·         they failed to ensure our client would be reasonably safe whilst at her place of work.

 

After the accident, our client was taken to hospital.  She suffered a fractured elbow and had to undergo surgery on two occasions.  Moderately severe arthritis has now developed in her elbow.  Our client remains unable to fully extend her arm and cannot carry heavy items.  In the future she may require a part or full elbow replacement.

 

Lawson-West recovered £25000 in accident compensation for our client’s injuries and suffering plus recompense for disadvantage in the labour market, which in effect compensates our client for the fact that if she lost her job, she would be disadvantaged in finding another job due to her injuries.

 

Related Articles:

 

Printing caused dislocated knee

 

Weighbridge trip caused torn ligaments

 

Dental work and damaged knee after trip near a car park

Sofa caused Severe Allergic Reaction and Blistering

Our client bought a Marko suite of 2 two-seater sofas and one recliner chair from his local Walmsley store.  Approximately 7 – 14 days after using the sofa, our client felt an itchy sensation in his lower back.  After a couple of days, the area started to blister and our client felt a burning sensation spread over his back and his arms. 

 

Our client saw his GP on several occasions and attended the GP unit at his local hospital where he was given cream and antihistamines.  However, the cream and antihistamines didn’t help so our client returned to the GP unit.  His symptoms got worse and he attended the accident and emergency department which referred him back to his GP.  Shortly after, our client began to shake and tremble and felt paralysed.  An ambulance was called and our client was admitted to hospital where he was given steroid medication after his arms began to swell.  After allergy tests and seeing a newspaper article about problems with some sofas sourced from China and sold by Walmsleys and other outlets, our client linked his problems with the sofa suite.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim as there are implied terms in the sale agreement between Walmsleys and our client that the sofa would be:-

 

·         of satisfactory quality; and

·         fit for the purpose for which it was intended and provided.

 

Those terms had been broken as our client was left with a sofa that he could not use without triggering a severe allergic reaction and had suffered personal injury in sustaining blistering after using the sofa.

 

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £3,500 in respect of our client’s injuries and further compensation for the time our client had to take off work whilst in hospital and attending his GP.  This claim was settled without a medical report.

Weighbridge Trip caused Torn Ligaments

Our client, who is employed as a delivery driver, arrived at premises where he was to make a delivery.  After offloading his delivery, our client drove towards the exit.  Our client had been instructed to exit via the weighbridge so he drove onto the weighbridge and got out of his lorry in order to collect the paperwork.  After he’d got out of the cab, he stood back to shut the cab door and his foot went over a raised edge, causing him to fall.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The accident was the fault of the occupiers of the premises where the delivery was made because they:-

 

·         failed to keep the weighbridge area free from obstruction;

·         failed to provide or maintain a safe means of access to every place at which our client had to work or make and keep safe the place in which our client was working;

·         failed to discharge common duty of care to see that our client was reasonably safe when using the premises;

·         caused, permitted or suffered the surface next to the weighbridge to become or remain a hazard;

·         failed to devise, institute, operate or ensure the institution or operation of any or any adequate system of housekeeping in order to ensure the premises were kept free of tripping hazards;

·         exposed our client to a foreseeable risk of injury;

·         instructed our client to walk in the weighbridge area when it was unsafe to do so;

·         failed to warn our client of the dangers of walking in the weighbridge area or prevented him from using the weighbridge;

·         failed to take any or any adequate care for the safety of our client;

·         breached statutory duties under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.

 

After his fall, it took several minutes before someone came to help.  The accident was recorded in the accident book.  Our client phoned his employer to tell them about the accident.  He managed to drive back to his employer’s premises where he continued working.  However, on the day after the accident, he attended hospital where he was diagnosed as having torn ligaments in his ankle.

 

Lawson-West recovered accident compensation of £1750 for our client’s injuries along with compensation for loss of earnings as our client had to take time off work following the accident.

Rear End Shunt at Junction caused Back Injury

Our client had stopped at a junction, waiting to turn left from a side road so that he could continue his journey.  Suddenly another car rear end shunted our client’s car causing injuries.

 

The other driver was at fault because he:

 

·         failed to slow down as he approached a junction;

·         failed to keep a look out for other vehicles;

·         failed to notice our client’s car;

·         failed to stop, slow down or control his car to avoid collision;

·         was in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Highway Code.

 

Our client sustained a back injury and went to see his General Practitioner after the accident.  He was referred to an Osteopath.

 

Our client took 4 days off work and could not play football, which he played regularly, for 6 weeks after the accident.  Our client had trouble carrying out household chores following the accident because of his back injury.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The other driver admitted liability.  Lawson-West recovered compensation of £1350 in respect of our client’s back injury.  Further compensation was recovered for the osteopathic treatment, travel to and from medical appointments and other out of pocket expenses resulting from the accident.

Driver convicted of Wounding with Intent after car mounted pavement causing Severe Injuries

Our client was walking along the pavement with other pedestrians.  A car mounted the pavement and hit our client.

 

Our client was taken to hospital via ambulance.  He suffered a fractured skull and bruising to the brain, a fractured clavicle leading to permanent disfigurement, along with torn leg muscles and ligaments.  His head injury caused severe headaches, vertigo, loss of appetite and nausea.  He has very little memory of the accident and was kept in hospital for a week.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  The driver was at fault because:-

 

·         he failed to keep any proper look out;

·         he was driving too fast;

·         he mounted the footpath;

·         he failed to notice our client;

·         he failed to control the car either by way of stopping, swerving or otherwise to avoid the accident;

·         he injured our client by deliberately mounting the pavement;

·         failed to care for our client’s safety.

 

The driver failed to stop at the scene of the accident.  The accident was reported to the police.  Afterwards the car involved was found burnt out.  It was reported in the local newspaper that the driver appeared to be aiming the car at two other pedestrians who managed to get out of the way so the car hit our client, who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, instead.  After a police investigation, the driver was convicted in court of wounding with intent in respect of our client.

 

The driver was uninsured so the accident compensation claim was made against the Motor Insurance Bureau who process claims for injuries caused by uninsured drivers.

 

Lawson-West recovered compensation of £25,000 in respect of our client’s injuries and additional expenses for physiotherapy and compensation for loss of earnings as our client was off work for 5 months.

Rear End Shunted Minibus led to Whiplash Injuries

Our client, who is qualified and employed as a bus driver, was driving a minibus in the course of his employment on the day of his accident.  He came to a stop at traffic lights which were on red.  Suddenly a car collided with the rear of the minibus, causing our client to sustain personal injuries.

 

The accident was the car driver’s fault because he:-

 

·         drove too fast

·         failed to keep a proper look out for other road users

·         failed to notice our client’s minibus

·         failed to stop, slow down or swerve to avoid the accident

·         was in breach of duty under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Highway Code.

 

Our client attended his GP after the accident where he was confirmed to have sustained a whiplash injury and recommended to attend physiotherapy.  Our client took 12 weeks off work, due to his injuries, later returning to lighter duties.  Fortunately he did not suffer any loss of earnings as a result.

 

Lawson-West began a personal injury claim.  Lawson-West recovered £2500 in general damages as compensation for our client’s injuries plus additional compensation for travel expenses and the cost of attending physiotherapy sessions.  He was expected to make a full recovery within 12 months.