George U. Harrod & Another v. Edward E‪.‬

In an action against a distributor of beauty products by the operator of a beauty shop for breach of warranty in connection with a hair coloring cream sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, evidence merely that, following the instructions accompanying a bottle of the defendant's cream, the plaintiff mixed it with hydrogen peroxide and homogenized bleach, the origin of which was not shown, and sustained injuries to the skin of her hands when rinsing the mixture out of a customer's hair, left it conjectural whether the plaintiff's injury was due to the defendant's cream, the peroxide, the bleach, or the mixture, and a verdict was rightly directed for the defendant. In this action Lucille Harrod (the plaintiff) seeks to recover for injury allegedly sustained by her from the use of Bressard Tiara, a hair coloring cream, which she purchased from the defendant in reliance upon certain express and implied warranties which she claims were broken. Her husband has joined in the action in a count for consequential damages. At the close of the evidence on motions by the defendant the Judge directed verdicts for the defendant on all counts, and the case is here on the plaintiffs' exceptions to the allowance of the motions.