Patterson v. Carpenter

1 Citing case

  1. Ravo v. Lido

    17 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)   Cited 13 times

    Nevertheless, the force of such rulings in some of those cases is weakened by the fact that evidence of negligence was actually presented. It was claimed in Cowhig ( supra) that the operator had used "the wrong solution," one so strong that it had split her hands; in Grant ( supra), that it was contrary to good practice to fail to use cotton to prevent the solution from going down the patron's face and neck, and to put her under an electrically heated hair dryer while the lotion was still on her; in Morrison ( supra), that protective cotton was placed on the patron only after a delay, and that the lotion-laden pads which were used could generate a heat of up to 212 degrees Fahrenheit; and in Weiss ( supra), that the administering beautician had failed to follow the lotion manufacturer's manual with respect to "test-curler procedure," and that the liquid substance had been left on the patron's person "too long" or that it had been "too strong," or both. In this connection, Patterson v. Carpenter ( 98 Ga. App. 889), another "cold-wave" case, is significant. The trial court nonsuited the injured plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed that determination.