MEDIA – A Delaware couple who alleged that negligence on the part of a local hair salon led to the male plaintiff suffering hair loss, skin discoloration and patching, after a hair color and dye was applied to his scalp, have settled their claims.
Delano King and Leahmon King of Middletown, Del. first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 26, 2021 versus Trish Salon (doing business as “Trish Hair Salon & Barber Shop”) and Phi Thi Le (individually and doing business as “Trish Hair Salon & Barber Shop”) of Lansdowne and L’Oréal USA, Inc. of New York, N.Y.
“On a date in or around mid-March of 2019, plaintiff, Delano King, went to defendant Trish to get a haircut. On that date, defendant, Le, and/or another employee, worker, representative, and/or agent, of defendant, Trish, cut, styled, and/or treated plaintiff Delano King’s hair,” the suit stated.
“During his haircut, plaintiff Delano King, asked defendant Le, and/or another employee, worker, representative, and/or agent, of defendant Trish, who was cutting, styling, and/or treating his hair if she could color and/or dye his hair to get cover up the gray that had started to appear on his head and beard. Plaintiff Delano King had never before colored or dyed his hair.”
A dye was prepared and then applied to the hair on the subject plaintiff’s, head and chin areas. Though the plaintiff felt burning, itching and irritation immediately after the dye was applied, the suit says that defendant Le, and/or another employee, worker, representative, and/or agent, of defendant Trish, failed to quickly wash all the hair color dye(s), tint(s), and/or other chemical(s) out from the subject plaintiff’s head and chin areas.
“When plaintiff, Delano King, left defendant, Trish, both immediately and two days after his visit, he continued to experience burning, itching, and/or irritation on his head and chin areas where the hair color dye(s), tint(s), and/or other chemical(s) had been applied, placed, and/or used,” per the suit.
“Within a week of his visit to defendant, Trish, plaintiff, Delano King, began to experience patchy hair loss, discoloration, and/or pigmentation changes to the areas where defendant, Le, and/or another employee, worker, representative, and/or agent, of defendant, Trish, had applied the hair color dye(s), tint(s), and/or other chemical(s) to his head and chin areas.”
Attorneys for Le and Trish Hair Salon & Barber Shop filed an answer to the complaint and new matter on May 26, 2021.
“The matters alleged herein are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is denied that any employee, workman, representative or agent acted in a negligent fashion within the course and scope of his or her employment and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial,” the answer said.
“Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred by plaintiff's assumption of a known risk and/or contributory negligence. Plaintiffs’ causes of action may be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. If plaintiffs sustained the injuries as alleged in their complaint, which are strictly denied, then they were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of individuals or entities over whom answering defendant had no control or right to control.”
It then placed the blame for the incident with its co-defendant, L’Oréal USA.
On June 10, 2021, L’Oréal USA filed its own answer in the case, asserting both substantially similar affirmative defenses against the litigation and to argue that Le and Trish Hair Salon were actually at fault.
On April 19, counsel for all parties mutually filed a stipulation of dismissal as to defendant L’Oréal USA.
“It is agreed by and among all counsel that defendant, L’Oréal USA, Inc. is dismissed from this matter without prejudice. Counsel further stipulate that if facts are revealed during the course of discovery and/or litigation that suggest any potential involvement and/or liability of defendant, L’Oréal, U.S.A., Inc., to any party, plaintiffs and/or any other named defendant shall be permitted to file a motion to reinstate L’Oréal, U.S.A., Inc., as a named defendant in this matter, without regard to any applicable statute of limitations defense,” the stipulation stated.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Spiros E. Angelos authorized the dismissal through a judicial order issued on May 6.
UPDATE
On June 30, plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe to settle, discontinue and end the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Kindly mark the above captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended upon payment of your costs only,” the praecipe said.
The plaintiffs were represented by Michael J. Davey of Eckell Sparks Levy Auerbach Monte Sloane Matthews & Auslander, in Media.
The defendants were represented by Robert A. Morton IV of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in King of Prussia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-002012
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com