X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Judge Kram http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=56967 PLAINTIFF REQUIRED emergency treatment and hospitalization after an anaphylactic reaction to defendant’s hair color product. He claimed that the product was defective and unsafe and that defendant failed to warn of possible allergic reactions. The court granted defendant summary judgment, ruling that it had no duty to warn. It was undisputed that the exterior of the box containing the hair color product bore the preliminary allergy “patch” test warning required by 21 USC �361(a), a provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Plaintiff conceded to failing to read cautionary language on the product’s label or package insert. The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant had a duty to warn because several European nations had banned a colorant used in most hair dyes, concluding that there was no evidence that that colorant caused plaintiff’s reaction. It also rejected plaintiff’s reliance on a warning on a different product with a different formula made by a different manufacturer.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.