On This Day: Hair Perm Company Liable for Damages in Warranty Dispute
An at-home hair perm kit from the Toni Home Permanent Co. is on display in the Moyer Judicial Center's Visitor Education Center.
An at-home hair perm kit from the Toni Home Permanent Co. is on display in the Moyer Judicial Center's Visitor Education Center.
In 1944, Neison and Irving Harris established the Toni Home Permanent Company as a less-expensive alternative to salon perms. As one of the first at-home perm products, it quickly grew in popularity in the 1950s among women and girls. In 1958, an Ohio girl and her mother purchased the product labeled “Very Gentle.” Despite following the directions carefully, when the girl removed the curlers, almost all of her hair fell out. Her mother sued Toni Home Permanent Co. for $30,000 in damages.
The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas court ruled against the mother and daughter, upholding the requirement of privity in express warranty cases. It states that a direct contractual relationship must be present between a consumer and seller for legal action to be pursued. Because the product was purchased from a store instead of directly from the manufacturer, Toni Home Permanent Co. was not liable for any damages. However, the case was brought to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision based on the notion that it did not matter whether there was a direct contractual relationship, given the manufacturer advertised the product was safe. Finally, the case was argued before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co.
On this day in 1958, the Supreme Court decided in the matter of Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co. that Toni Home Permanent Co. was ultimately responsible for damages. This decision released the requirement of privity in cases where an express warranty agreement was breached, which in this case, was safety. Since the product caused personal injury, the girl and her mother had every right to pursue action against the manufacturer. In writing for the majority, Justice Charles Zimmerman explained, “The warranties made by the manufacturer in his advertisements and by the labels on his products are inducements to the ultimate consumers, and the manufacturer ought to be held to strict accountability to any consumer who buys the product in reliance on such representations and later suffers injury because the product proves to be defective or deleterious.”
This case is one of several featured in the Visitor Education Center at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center. Cases help illustrate the importance of Ohio’s judicial system and its role in interpreting the law. See the decisions for yourself on a free tour! Call 614.387.9223 or email CourtTours@sc.ohio.gov to schedule.