Legal Opinion

Elliott v. Lachance

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 30, 1969No. 5761PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.

Action to recover damages, consisting ol temporary loss of hair, severe emotional disturbance and related expenses, following a shampoo and permanent wave administered to the plaintiff by the defendant at her beauty parlor in Franklin on September 12, 1964. The bases of plaintiff’s action are (1) that die defendant negligently and carelessly performed the wave and other treatment, and (2) that the solution used in giving the permanent, warranted by the defendant to be safe, contained in fact dangerous and harmful chemicals which made it unfit for use.

Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Dippel v. ScianoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Elmore v. American Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Judith Brochu and Emmanuel T. Brochu v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
  3. Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
  4. Kline v. BurnsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
  5. Buttrick v. Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1969

40 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