McGUINESS v. ROUX DISTR. CO.


19 Misc.2d 956 (1959)

Sylvia McGuiness, Respondent, v. Roux Distributing Co., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 11, 1959.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hampton & Mahoney (William F. McNulty of counsel), for appellants.

Qelig Lenefsky for respondent.

Concur — STEUER, J. P., HOFSTADTER and AURELIO, JJ.


Per Curiam.

Plaintiff failed to establish that the hair dye she purchased contained any deleterious substance. This is a necessary element. (Karr v. Inecto, Inc., 247 N.Y. 360.) The occurrence of skin damage is not such proof unless other possible causes are excluded by competent professional testimony. (Cahill v. Inecto, Inc., 208 App. Div. 191; see Karr v. Inecto, Inc., supra, p. 364.)

The judgment should be reversed, with...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases