Can I sue The Stylist Or Salon

[You Are Guilty]

While anything can, and frequently does, happen in small claims, that sort of holding (that an owner is liable for acts of an IC) is why appeals exist

 

[tranquility]

It was not small claims. The glop can be fairly destructive if left on too long. (It wasn't a little long, but way, way too long.) But, as I said, it was direct liability and not vicarious liability.

 

[You Are Guilty]

On what basis, products? (Unless the owner required them to use the acid glop, I just don't see what they did wrong).

 

[tranquility]

The client called the shop with the owner's name for an appointment with A. Owner rented chair to A and required certain supplies be purchased through him as part of the agreement. Client comes in and wants relaxed hair and the product the owner (re)sells is what is to be used for such things. Owner sells product to untrained person. While the person has a license to do hair and there is no special license required to use product, product has warning label saying don't use unless you know what you're doing (or somesuch). Owner knew the training and experience of A and sold the product to be used in his shop.

By retaining control over the sale of the product, the court found (under all the facts indicating the relationship) he retained liability of the use of the product by lack of diligence regarding facts he knew. He knew the stylist didn't have any specialized training and he didn't oversee it's use to the level required.

Could there have been an appeal? Maybe. But the insurance company decided to pay and move on.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Aha. Kind of an important detail

 

[tranquility]

Which detail was the clincher for you?

They got some direct liability against the owner for his oversight of the hiring of the stylist. Something about how he should have checked the stylist had the proper training before selling (Actually, reselling.) the glop to them for use in his shop where the customers were not informed it was an IC shop.

By retaining control over the sale of the product, the court found (under all the facts indicating the relationship) he retained liability of the use of the product by lack of diligence regarding facts he knew. He knew the stylist didn't have any specialized training and he didn't oversee it's use to the level required.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Owner rented chair to A and required certain supplies be purchased through him as part of the agreement.

Plus,

Owner knew the training and experience of A and sold the product to be used in his shop.

is what did it for me.