Legal Opinion

Maddocks v. Bennett

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1969No. 1006PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BONEY, Justice.

Appellants have appealed from an adverse jury verdict rendered in a personal injury suit.

Plaintiff, Mrs. Bennett, went to defendant Anchorage Hotel Beauty Salon at 5 p. m., on May 17, 1966, to have her hair dyed. She requested that a Lady Clairol product “Loving Care,” be used; and defendant Janet Maddocks, a beauty operator, applied the dye to Mrs. Bennett. A patch test, a means of determining whether one is allergic to the dye, was not given to Mrs. Bennett, although such a test was required by the manufacturer’s instructions 24 hours before each application of the dye. All…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Beaulieu v. ElliottAlaska Supreme Court · 1967
  3. City of Fairbanks v. NesbettAlaska Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Otis Elevator Company v. McLaneyAlaska Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Crawford v. RogersAlaska Supreme Court · 1965

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State v. PhillipsAlaska Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Ferrell v. BaxterAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Davis v. ChismAlaska Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Power Constructors, Inc. v. Taylor & HintzeAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Marron v. StromstadAlaska Supreme Court · 2005

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API