Opinion ID: 2299834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The applicability of res ipsa loquitur.

Text: In order to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must establish that (1) [the] event would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the event was caused by an instrumentality in defendant's exclusive control; and (3) there was no voluntary action or contribution on plaintiff's part. District of Columbia v. Billingsley, 667 A.2d 837, 841 (D.C.1995). Whether this doctrine may properly be applied where, as in this case, a patron of a beauty salon claims that she has been injured as a result of treatment that she has received there, appears to be a question of first impression in the District of Columbia. There is, however, substantial case law on the subject in other jurisdictions, and the weight of authority strongly supports Ms. Scott's position: Where plaintiffs have sought to recover damages for injuries which they allegedly sustained as patrons of beauty salons, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been held applicable in numerous cases, the courts often emphasizing that the particular circumstances proved by the plaintiff constituted sufficient evidence (1) that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by what happened in the defendant's beauty salon, rather than by some other cause; (2) that the beauty salon or its employees had exclusive control of the instrumentality which caused the injuries; and (3) that such injuries as the plaintiff sustained do not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. Thus it has been held in various cases that under the particular circumstances involved, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable where the plaintiff allegedly sustained such injuries as (1) scalp burns or loss of hair as a result of a permanent wave administered by means of electrical heat at the defendant's beauty salon, or (2) burns, loss of hair, or dermatitis as a result of a cold wave permanent administered by means of a waving lotion at the defendant's beauty salon, or (3) scalp pain or loss of hair as a result of having hair bleached at the defendant's beauty salon, or (4) facial injuries following treatment at the defendant's beauty salon for removal of superfluous facial hair, or (5) having hair change to an undesired color following treatment in the defendant's beauty salon.... Timothy M. Hall, Annotation, Res Ipsa Loquitur  Beauty Salon Patron, 93 A.L.R.3d 897, 900 (1979); see also 11 AM. JUR.2D Barbers and Cosmetologists § 24, at 309 & nn. 34 & 35 (1997), and authorities there cited. The principles summarized above are set forth in numerous decisions from various jurisdictions collected in the annotation. See, e.g., Glossip v. Kelly, 228 Mo.App. 392, 67 S.W.2d 513, 515-16 (1934) (Commissioner's opinion adopted per curiam ); Epps v. Ragsdale, 429 S.W.2d 798, 800-01 (Mo.Ct.App.1968) (Commissioner's opinion adopted per curiam ); Morrison v. Steppe's Beauticians Inc., 95 Ohio App. 1, 115 N.E.2d 868, 870 (1953); Traylor v. The Fair, 101 Ill.App.2d 268, 243 N.E.2d 300, 303-04 (1968). In my opinion, this court should follow the approach adopted in these cases.