Relying on a 1991 appellate decision which concluded that the manufacturer of a hair product should have instructed the user to perform a preliminary allergy test before applying the product, plaintiff brought a failure to warn claim against a different manufacturer on the same basis. Reversing the verdict in favor of plaintiff, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “the trial court erred in simply relying on the facts presented in Thomas v. Clairol, where such instructions were given, to find that Alberto-Culver should have also given an instruction, for the facts presented in that case provided no evidentiary factual basis to support the trial court’s finding in this case.” The Court notes that: “We do not imply the adoption of a per se rule that expert testimony is always necessary. Rather, we simply point out that no evidence was introduced to satisfy plaintiff’s burden of proof.”See Jack v. Alberto-Culver, USA, 2006-1883 (La. 2/22/07), 949 So.2d 1256.
Leave a Reply