Opinion ID: 277859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellee's proof about the mixture.

Text: 16 First, we consider the proof offered by Appellee on the dangerous qualities of the mixture. Appellee elicited testimony that the directions accompanying the Helene Curtis bleach were followed. 8 Most important is the fact that Mrs. Hendren checked Appellee's scalp and found no cuts, eruptions, abrasions, or other abnormal conditions which rendered the hair unsuited for bleaching; that the hair had not been shampooed, brushed or massaged in the twenty-four hours prior to treatment; that a preliminary strand test showed no harmful effects to the hair by the mixture; and that the proper proportions of the products were used. Appellee also had evidence about the nature of the bleaching process. It was shown that the mixture of the two products produced a liberation of oxygen from the hydrogen peroxide. This process burned the hair pigment until it was colorless. It also had the potential for causing harm if the mixture was too toxic or left on the hair too long. Mr. Anderson, an analytical chemist, testified about the chemical qualities of the mixture. He had conducted experiments on the products to ascertain the active ingredients. 9 He admitted that there was a chemical burn, but he was unable to say what caused the burn. He did testify that the mixture would have had to be much stronger than the ones he tested to cause Appellee's burn. His conclusions were based on the fact that the concentration of the peroxide, which he thought was the dangerous ingredient, was normal. Finally, he stated that he did not think a bobby pin or cut on the head could have increased the activity of the products enough to cause this burn. 17 Appellee also obtained the statement from Mr. Dieter, a cosmetic chemist for Helene, that in order to produce such a burn the products either had to be defective or the directions not followed. Dr. Majors, Appellee's personal physician, testified that in his opinion the burn happened suddenly. By this statement he meant about fifteen minutes. It was shown that the solution was on Mrs. Pruitt's head about fifteen to twenty minutes before the burning started. Dr. Majors also testified that he did not believe a cut could produce this burn. His subsequent testimony is the most interesting. He stated that he thought one of two things happened: There was either some mislabeling of one of the bottles so that the solution or the powder was not what was usually in the products, or the directions were not followed properly. He concluded that it was his opinion that this 'chemical burn was produced by the application of the bleaching substance she told me she used on her scalp.' 18 On the basis of this testimony, Appellee asserts that the defect in the mixture speaks for iteslf. Although the trend has certainly been to allow more and more circumstantial evidence to serve as the basis for liability, we believe that in this instance a finding of a defect was unwarranted. The evidence about the character of the mixture and its propensities for harm does not suggest a defect. The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use. 10 Appellee has attempted to skirt that principle by invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Certainly this doctrine has produced the most situations in which the jury has been allowed to infer negligence from an unexplained accident. Several elements must be present before the doctrine is applicable: The accident must be one which would not ordinarily occur without the presence of negligence; the plaintiff must show that the product was properly handled after it left the maker's possession; and, finally, plaintiff must prove that the product has not been substantially altered after leaving the maker's control. 11 Generally, the plaintiff is required to exclude these other causes by a preponderance of the evidence. Dement v. Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp., 5th Cir. 1960, 272 F.2d 76; Ozark v. Wichita Manor, Inc., 5th Cir. 1958, 252 F.2d 671. This preponderance-of-the-evidence test was employed because the courts looked to state law for the applicability of the doctrine. Since this state rule conflicts with the federal test, this Court will no longer rely solely on state law to determine the applicability of res ipsa loquitur. See 2B Barron & Holtzoff, supra, at 18. All that is in issue is the sufficiency of the evidence to infer a defect in a product. 12 The factors considered in deciding whether the doctrine applies are still relevant; the only thing that has changed is the quantum of proof necessary to negate the other explanations of the injury. 13 19 We agree with Appellants' assertion that when circumstantial evidence is the only proof, courts have infrequently inferred negligence (here a defect) simply from the accident and proof of careful conduct by the plaintiff, and then only in instances where the accident is the type which, standing alone, points an accusing finger at the maker. Furthermore, in all these cases the chance of mishandling is improbable. 14 It is a matter of common knowledge that cosmetics can never be made completely safe for all users and can cause injuries for many reasons other than a defect in the product. Since injuries can be caused by the toxicity of the chemicals, contact with other products, the method of application, or an allergic condition, the circumstances do not point an accusing finger at the manufacturer. See Ravo v. Lido, 17 A.D.2d 476, 236 N.Y.S.2d 135 (1962). 20 In the instant case Appellee has failed to prove that it was the toxicity of the products which caused the injury rather than the other factors just enumerated. The testimony about the burning quality of the products is patently inadequate. This burning quality resulted from the oxidation process which occurred when the bleach and peroxide were mixed. No liability can be based on this burning potentiality since the very process of bleaching hair involves a chemical reaction or oxidation process by which the color in the hair is destroyed. It takes a powerful chemical to accomplish the decolorization. As one court observed, the sale as a bleaching fluid of a product that did not bleach would itself constitute a breach of warranty. Thus the very ingredient and quality which makes the fluid harmful if improperly used is the ingredient and quality which makes it fit for the purposes for which it was purchased. Landers v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 172 Or. 116, 139 P.2d 788 (1943). When products contain dangerous ingredients which are natural or inherent, courts have usually held that the product is not defective. Zorger v. Hillman's, 287 Ill.App. 357, 4 N.E.2d 900 (1936). It is only when the manufacturer could not reasonably expect the consumer to discover the natural substance in the final product that liability has resulted. Bennett v. Pilot Products Co., 120 Utah 474, 235 P.2d 525, 26 A.L.R.2d 958 (1951); Betehia v. Cape Cod Corp., 10 Wis.2d 323, 103 N.W.2d 64 (1960). In the instant case we cannot say that Appellee did not know that the bleaching process and its natural ingredients were intended to decolor her hair. 21 The other proof on the character of the mixture is just as equivocal. See e.g., Rexall Drug Co. v. Nihill, 9th Cir. 1960, 276 F.2d 637; Benavides v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 346 Mass. 154, 190 N.E.2d 894 (1963). The two statements that the products were either defective or misapplied do nothing to exclude each other. Dr. Major's statement that the 'application of the bleaching solution' caused the burn is the most interesting. In Zampino v. Colgate-Palmolive Peet Co., 8 A.D.2d 304, 187 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1959), the plaintiff obtained a similar statement from a doctor to show that the aluminum sulfate in Veto deodorant was harmful. The court held that the statement amounted to no evidence of the fact that some ingredient in the product was harmful. Of course the application of the bleaching solution in the instant case caused the injury. The only circumstance in which this statement could conceivably support recovery would be one in which res ipsa loquitur was applicable. Here, however, it provides no basis for the inference that it was the nature of the mixture rather than the method of the applier which caused the burn. Hanrahan v. Walgreen Co., 243 N.C. 268, 90 S.E.2d 392 (1955). 22 Nor do all the statements stand alone. We present the following discussion as additional support for our holding that as a matter of law these products were not in a defective condition which was unreasonably dangerous for their intended use. Appellee's problem is that she has not presented enough facts to constitute a cause of action in strict liability. Cf. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. Funel, 5th Cir. 1967, 383 F.2d 42. In all the other cases considered, the proof presented by the plaintiff was sufficient to make out a cause of action, despite conflicting evidence. Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 1959, 359 U.S. 437, 79 S.Ct. 921, 3 L.Ed.2d 935; Berry v. United States, 1941, 312 U.S. 450, 61 S.Ct. 637, 85 L.Ed. 945. Our approach does not weigh the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses; we simply assert that the evidence about the characteristics of the mixture is not sufficient to constitute a cause of action in strict liability. 23