Ravo v. Lido
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtChrist, J.
The basic question presented is whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where the injured plaintiff claims to have sustained personal injury as the result of a permanent hair-wave treatment administered to her in defendant’s beauty parlor by a machineless method known as the ‘ ‘ cold wave ” process. Involved in that question is the issue whether the lotion or lotions used in said process proximately caused the *477injury. There appears to be no authoritative reported adjudication on the subject in this State.
The female plaintiff testified that shortly after 9:00 a.m. on February…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Weiss v. AxlerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1958
- Pearson v. ButtsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Manley v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Karr v. Inecto, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Grenawalt v. NyhuisMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. And Cosmair, Inc. v. Edd Pruitt and Marjorie Ann PruittCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
- Scott v. JamesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- Conlon v. G. Fox & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Horan v. Klein's-Sheridan, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1965
- Traylor v. the FairAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.