Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

[lolalolipop]

Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed


I attended a beauty salon where I received burns to my upper eyelids from an eyebrow wax.
Two days later I attended a private Hospital for cosmetic surgery. It was a combined facial surgery and upper eyelid surgery. The Consultant Surgeon could not preform the eyelid surgery due to the burns received from the waxing treatment.
He made a notation on my Surgical Consent Form regarding the burns from the waxing treatment.
This was followed up with a formal letter.
I had to rebook the surgery for six weeks later at a further cost to myself.
The complaint has been ongoing with the beauty salon since December 2015. Allegedly the complaint, evidence such as photos, formal letters from my Consultant Surgeon had been with their insurer for ten weeks. Their outcome found they were not negligent, nor where they going to compensate for me having to pay a further amount to have the surgery that previously been cancelled. The Beauty Salon and their insurers say that my Consultant Surgeons opinion is not valid and that I should have had an independent medical assessment.
Of course, had I been able to see in to the future, and that my complaint would drag on for eight months, then I would have gone for an independent assessment.
It has now come down to me threatening to take them to court.
Now the Personal Injury saga really starts. I have contacted a few Personal Injury Solicitors who have declined to take the case as it was not an injury that caused a great deal of injury, i.e., the physical effects lasted between seven to ten days, not three to four weeks.
Confused, I am, indeed.
Is there anything further I can do? I feel so angry that a Beauty Salon can cause enough damage to warrant pre planned surgery to be cancelled. Of course, it's not only the damage caused, but it lead to another recovery period when I had only planned for one, as well as my husband having to take extra time from his employment to cover my employment duties.
Any advice would be gratefully accepted.

[des8]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

Hi and welcome.

Basically you have to prove that the salon was negligent, i.e. they acted outside of the norm and the result was foreseeable.
As the direct damage was slight and did not need medical attention (?), and the indirect losses (your added expenses) could not have been foreseen any damages awarded are likely to be small.

That being the case you must consider if it is worth the stress of initiating court action and suing the salon or therapist.

[lolalolipop]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

Hi and welcome.

Basically you have to prove that the salon was negligent, i.e. they acted outside of the norm and the result was foreseeable.
As the direct damage was slight and did not need medical attention (?), and the indirect losses (your added expenses) could not have been foreseen any damages awarded are likely to be small.

That being the case you must consider if it is worth the stress of initiating court action and suing the salon or therapist.

Thank you for your reply. I am just so cross and upset that I had to have the surgery cancelled and then to pay extra and go through another surgical procedure and recovery. I have lost £4500 from the injury that they caused. The partial cost of the combined surgery, at a reduced rate and then the further cost of a stand alone procedure. It was money that was earned and saved for a long time.

I have only ever requested that the beauty salon pay the cost of the stand alone surgical procedure and not the partial loss of the combined surgical loss as well.

It's a huge loss to have to accept and move on from.

[CLL1]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

I'm not as convinced as des8 when it comes to loss.

Basically, you'll need to establish the following three points:

1) Was a duty of care owed to you by the Salon? [Answer = yes]
2) Did they breach that duty? [Answer = yes]
3) Did that breach cause your loss? [Answer = yes, possibly]

Possible defences are remoteness (i.e. your loss is not so directly linked to the damage you suffered) and mitigation (did you do all you could to reduce your losses)

I would reccomend sending a letter before action to the salon, with a copy for them to send on to their insurer, claiming your loss.

The procedure for all of this is set out under the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...tocol/prot_pic.

I would imagine, though, that this will again be denied, so you need to consider whether you'd be prepared to issue proceedings against the Salon to recover your loss.

[des8]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

But surely the answer to point 2) is "maybe"
The fact that burns were sustained does not automatically mean the salon breached their duty of care.
That is where the claimant needs to prove negligence.
The defendant denies negligence, and is backed by their insurers (not that they are biased lol)
No PI solicitor is keen to take the case.
Damages , if successful, could be small.
That is why I counselled about considering the stress of a court action against what might be obtained.

[CLL1]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

But surely the answer to point 2) is "maybe"
The fact that burns were sustained does not automatically mean the salon breached their duty of care.
That is where the claimant needs to prove negligence.
The defendant denies negligence, and is backed by their insurers (not that they are biased lol)
No PI solicitor is keen to take the case.
Damages , if successful, could be small.
That is why I counselled about considering the stress of a court action against what might be obtained.

The answer to point 2 is very clearly yes. The legal test is the reasonable man test (Blythe v Birmingham Water Works).

A potential defendant will be negligent by falling below the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in his/her situation, ie by doing something which the reasonable man would not do or failing to do something which the reasonable man would do

Of course they will deny it, that means nothing.

No PI will take it because PI claims are taken on under CFAs; the damages available are low, so it's not commercially viable to accept instructions.

[des8]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

But if the beauty therapist carried out the procedure according to the manufacturer's instructions,(ie followed the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in her situation) she would not have failed to do what a reasonable perso(n would do.
The therapist would not foresee a harmful consequence, thus the therapist would not have been negligent.

[CLL1]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

But if the beauty therapist carried out the procedure according to the manufacturer's instructions,(ie followed the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in her situation) she would not have failed to do what a reasonable perso(n would do.
The therapist would not foresee a harmful consequence, thus the therapist would not have been negligent.

Yes, agreed.

[charitynjw]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

But if the beauty therapist carried out the procedure according to the manufacturer's instructions,(ie followed the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in her situation) she would not have failed to do what a reasonable perso(n would do.
The therapist would not foresee a harmful consequence, thus the therapist would not have been negligent.

Yes, agreed.

If it were me, I would endeavour to find out exactly what the manufacturer's instructions & procedures are for using this product.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

I'm not as convinced as des8 when it comes to loss.

Basically, you'll need to establish the following three points:

1) Was a duty of care owed to you by the Salon? [Answer = yes]
2) Did they breach that duty? [Answer = yes]
3) Did that breach cause your loss? [Answer = yes, possibly]

Possible defences are remoteness (i.e. your loss is not so directly linked to the damage you suffered) and mitigation (did you do all you could to reduce your losses)

I would reccomend sending a letter before action to the salon, with a copy for them to send on to their insurer, claiming your loss.

The procedure for all of this is set out under the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...tocol/prot_pic.

I would imagine, though, that this will again be denied, so you need to consider whether you'd be prepared to issue proceedings against the Salon to recover your loss.

There is already a duty anyway that one business owes a consumer. She needs to prove breach: wrong done against her, and causation: said wrong was cause of the personal injuries. There has likely been breach, where the standard is the reasonable salon business, and causation is not relevant as only one cause, ie the salon. Remoteness: are the claims including damages via self help remedy, such as 'cosmetic surgery in this circumstance: "where I received burns to my upper eyelids from an eyebrow wax. Two days later I attended a private Hospital for cosmetic surgery. It was a combined facial surgery and upper eyelid surgery. The Consultant Surgeon could not preform the eyelid surgery due to the burns received from the waxing treatment."

The answer to this lies in the aftermath, were Lola not to have taken action to mitigate against her losses, what was the alternative for Lola; if she'd have left the damage as it was it would likely be a permanent injury. It could be argued therefore that Lola had taken reasonable steps to mitigate against her losses by dealing with the problem on early onset rather than leaving the problem where it may have exacerbated or left her with a permanent mark, which the defendant may then argue she 'left her injuries to claim more for 'pain and suffering.' In my view, the claim for personal injury for the burns to her upper eyelids should be compensatory, in addition to the pain and suffering she suffered when the problem happened, in this case right up until the point where she was no longer in pain up to the point her cosmetic surgery began, normally. However, the chain for causation relating to pain and suffering may have been broken when she had her cosmetic surgery. Alternatively, if she had an anaesthetic, she would be relieved from So she likely has a claim of pain and suffering as a separate damages head up to the point the surgeon carried out the cosmetic surgery.

Defences: manufacturer: did the claimant follow instructions where expressly stated, as des8 suggests. If there is a manufacturer defence it does not close down the claim, it just reduces the amount of compensation (contributory negligence). The problem is Lola may well have a claim but given the damage lasted only a few days, it would likely cost more to bring that case than probably what the case is valued at. Were it not for the fact that Lola had taken preventative action her claim for pain and suffering notwithstanding the actual claim for personal injury itself, would have been valued more. Where is the legal authority that a person must retain their injuries just to enhance the claim? However, why did the damage only last a few days, did this owe you her taking preventative action, ergo a self help remedy? Who is the reasonable expert, well of course it is likely skin specialist, as who else could remedy the wrong done?

[des8]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

Just to clarify: wasn't the cosmetic surgery booked prior to the beauty treatment?
My understanding is not that it was an attempt at self help.
There has been no mention of pain and suffering except the statement " it was not an injury that caused a great deal of injury" and there is no mention I can see of "preventative action".
The claim appeared to be for extra costs caused by delay to the preplanned cosmetic surgery

[Openlaw15]

Re: Beauty Salon Burns, advice needed

Just to clarify: wasn't the cosmetic surgery booked prior to the beauty treatment?
My understanding is not that it was an attempt at self help.
There has been no mention of pain and suffering except the statement " it was not an injury that caused a great deal of injury" and there is no mention I can see of "preventative action".
The claim appeared to be for extra costs caused by delay to the preplanned cosmetic surgery

"Two days later I attended a private Hospital for cosmetic surgery. It was a combined facial surgery and upper eyelid surgery. The Consultant Surgeon could not preform the eyelid surgery due to the burns received from the waxing treatment.
He made a notation on my Surgical Consent Form regarding the burns from the waxing treatment.
This was followed up with a formal letter.
I had to rebook the surgery for six weeks later at a further cost to myself."

Under the egg-shell rule, the defendant takes the claimant victim as they find them. If the claimant had already planned to have cosmetic surgery but the surgery was delayed for 6 weeks, it's possible to make a claim for 'loss of amenity,' ie the plans for cosmetic surgery had to be unreasonably postponed, which for the defendant's tort would have not arisen. So, this is 'possibly' within the rules of remoteness, ie perhaps it's not too remote where the person has already booked for cosmetic surgery for this to be included in the damages.

If she was burnt, she'd have experienced 'pain and suffering,' which is a damages head under tort law. So, from when the personal injury happened up to when it finished, as aforesaid, is a separate damages' head.

[ostell]

This is a 4 year old thread !!!!!