Holmes V Ashford [1950] 2 All ER 76
Citation:Holmes V Ashford [1950] 2 All ER 76
Link to case on WorldLII (reference).
Rule of thumb:What happens if you get an injury at the hairdressers from the products used? If the warnings on the products, such as skin tests, have not been followed, then you could be entitled to compensation.
Background facts:
Parties argued:
Judgment:
the basic facts of this case were that a hairdresser dyed the customer’s hair without carrying out a reaction test first. It was advised in the instructions that this should be done. The customer contracted dermatitis from this. The Court held that the hairdresser was liable for the customer’s damages for not following the instructions. The hairdresser tried to argue that the instructions did not have sufficient warning. The Court held that the warning on the bottle was sufficient. The Court further set the test that people must be able to ‘appreciate what the warning meant’.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Every person who puts on the market a dangerous article (and the learned judge has found this to be a dangerous article) must take reasonable steps in all the circumstances. This is not an article the nature of which can be ascertained by intermediate examination, and, therefore, it is an article which requires some warning. The question in this case is: Was the warning attached to this bottle a sufficient and adequate warning to be given in cases where the material is supplied to hairdressers for use on their customers? We must presume that the material is supplied to reasonable people, and the first defendant has said that he read the warning, appreciated what it meant, and ignored it. I find it, therefore, impossible to hold that the warning which was, in fact, given in the present case was insufficient... Cases may possibly arise where criticism may be made that the warning is not in sufficiently large print, or complaints may be made where the substance is used by a woman on her own hair l and by holding that the warning was sufficient in the present case, I must not be taken to imply that a similar warning would be sufficient in those circumstances.”’, Tucker LJ
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.