Margaret Pinto v. Clairol, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Per curiam
Plaintiff-appellant, Margaret Pinto, sued defendant-appellee, Clairol, Inc., for damages alleged to have been suffered by her from using a hair dye, marketed by defendant under the trade name of “Miss Clairol.” Her case was tried to a jury which found for defendant. Plaintiff’s appeal alleges that the District Judge erred in submitting to the jury defendant’s claim that she was guilty of contributory negligence. The contributory negligence relied on by defendant was plaintiff’s failure to take a patch test to insure that she was not allergic to a certain chemical in the dye. Defendant’s…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. LangleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
- Wrenn v. Vincent Et Vincent of Langley, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. LangleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967