Judge Hatchett case on relaxer burn

angellazette

angellazette

New Member
OMG!!! Is anyone else watching this? I can't believe this hairdresser...

A young girl went to get a relaxer and complained of burning throughout. The hairdresser even said herself that when she went to curl the hair she saw a raw pink patch on her neck. So she sprayed it with spritz and even put her hand in it!!! :eek: Just to see if the girl would react to it, even though she already told her she was burning.

Then they show the photos of the burn and it is so obvious that it's a chemical burn and the hairdresser AND her assistant are talking about that it's gel and buildup, not a burn. Are you serious!?!? They even said the relaxer lifted the "dirt" off her neck and that is why her neck was pink. Yeah it lifted the dirt, the skin, and everything else off her neck!

This lady has been in business 10 years and spitting ignorance like this. The girl and her mother even have medical proof that she suffered from a chemical burn and hairloss and the hairdresser says the doctor wouldn't know.

Well they won their case...over $2,430.
 
I saw that & was shocked as well. :eek:

The beautican even admitted to perming a one year old. :eek:

The beautican was so cocky, I'm glad she lost the case...Maybe she will wake up and realize she was wrong.
 
WOW...I'm glad she (the client) won!

Ever since I joined LHCF I've learned so much about products and obtaining healthy hair; it just amazes me that some stylist with license still doesn't know the basics in hair care!
 
angellazette said:
OMG!!! Is anyone else watching this? I can't believe this hairdresser...

A young girl went to get a relaxer and complained of burning throughout. The hairdresser even said herself that when she went to curl the hair she saw a raw pink patch on her neck. So she sprayed it with spritz and even put her hand in it!!! :eek: Just to see if the girl would react to it, even though she already told her she was burning.

Then they show the photos of the burn and it is so obvious that it's a chemical burn and the hairdresser AND her assistant are talking about that it's gel and buildup, not a burn. Are you serious!?!? They even said the relaxer lifted the "dirt" off her neck and that is why her neck was pink. Yeah it lifted the dirt, the skin, and everything else off her neck!

This lady has been in business 10 years and spitting ignorance like this. The girl and her mother even have medical proof that she suffered from a chemical burn and hairloss and the hairdresser says the doctor wouldn't know.

Well they won their case...over $2,430.
Click to expand...

She should have rinsed the relaxer out immediately! "Lifted the dirt" how insulting :mad: ........$2,430? She should have been compensated more IMO.
 
I'm glad the plaintiffs won their case. The hairstylist and her assistant are so full of it. But let's not forget that Judge Hatchett also admonished them not to seek chemical services from someone they don't know. Just like I always say. ;)
 
What would anyone need to relax a 1 year old for? :eek: They still have that fine, baby hair a that age, don't they? I find it hard to believe that anyone would find a baby's hair so unmanageable that they'd put chemicals in it. That's insanity.
 
I did not see the episode but OMG. I would have died if I were the client. I am very tender headed so I always feel like they are ripping my hair out when some else did my relaxers. I have done them myself for years for that reason. Now this is another reason for me to continue to self relax.
 
Wow!!!! Hate that I missed this one. I'm glad that the lady was compensated. What bothers me most about stylists is that they never seem to own up to their mistakes. Usually, unless we educate ourselves, we end up accepting their explanation. as to what WE are doing wrong to our hair (even though we are weekly/bi-weekly) clients!!
 
oh wow, i am so mad that i missed this. I woulda been mad if i was that girl, she sprayed spritz on a BURN! I know that **** hurt. :(
 
That stylist is CRAZY... the more she talks the DUMBER she sounds. I hope her other clients see this and who she and her assistant really are. I missed the first part, did they say where they lived?
 
I only caught the last few minutes of this case. That was pretty cool she got that much for her judgement!
 
Starian said:
What would anyone need to relax a 1 year old for? :eek: They still have that fine, baby hair a that age, don't they? I find it hard to believe that anyone would find a baby's hair so unmanageable that they'd put chemicals in it. That's insanity.
Click to expand...

Yes that is sheer lunacy!!!:mad:
 
longlegz said:
I saw that & was shocked as well. :eek:

The beautician even admitted to perming a one year old. :eek:

The beautician was so cocky, I'm glad she lost the case...Maybe she will wake up and realize she was wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that part threw me too. It was like she was bragging about it and proving how skilled she is. :huh:

The hairdresser should have asked the girl if she scratched her scalp before starting that relaxer. If she did, the hairdresser should have given her other styling options for the party.
 
This is a small victory for pern burn victims everywhere! it kills me when I hear of the horror stories some stylists put their clients through. I think the small claims court can only give the amount of damage that was caused. The stylist deserved to have her business shut down. Why would she be proud of relaxing a 1 yr old? Disgusting!:mad:
 
Did yall hear the part when she said waiting more than six weeks to relax and waiting to relax 2 inches of growth was not normal? She was so indignant when she said that, that's when I knew she was a beauty quack:wacky:
 
Bumping because this episode was on today in my area... is this the case where the 3-year-old got chemical burns?

Judge Hatchett asked the mom why she was letting her 3-year-old get relaxers and the mom said it was her third one and a lot of 3-year-olds get them these days. I missed the end, so I didn't see if the judge said anything else.

Glad the parents won because those burns in the picture were horrible... so they definitely deserved the money -- but I hope the judge also sent a message that they need to stop relaxing a 3-year-old's hair. Wait until she's near her teen years before doing that!!! (I was 12)
 
victorious said:
Yeah, that part threw me too. It was like she was bragging about it and proving how skilled she is. :huh:

The hairdresser should have asked the girl if she scratched her scalp before starting that relaxer. If she did, the hairdresser should have given her other styling options for the party.
Click to expand...

This was the FIRST thing my new stylist asked me, and it was one of the things that made me decide to stick with her.

I saw this episode and I was SOOOO happy she got her judgement. I was late for class trying to watch the end of this!:lol:
 
I saw that episode a while back and that hairdresser had way too much attitude towards her client...and to have the nerve to tell the judge that the girls neck was dirty:mad:

I am glad the girl and her mom won the case!!
 
Bunny77 said:
Bumping because this episode was on today in my area... is this the case where the 3-year-old got chemical burns?

Judge Hatchett asked the mom why she was letting her 3-year-old get relaxers and the mom said it was her third one and a lot of 3-year-olds get them these days. I missed the end, so I didn't see if the judge said anything else.

Glad the parents won because those burns in the picture were horrible... so they definitely deserved the money -- but I hope the judge also sent a message that they need to stop relaxing a 3-year-old's hair. Wait until she's near her teen years before doing that!!! (I was 12)
Click to expand...

Then there should be a lot of parents getting sited for child endangerment. There is no way a toddler should have those chemicals in there hair. Any mom who would take an infant (1 yr old) to get a perm should be put on house arrest. Most 1yr olds can't talk well enough to tell somebody that they are getting burnt, and they still have a soft spot in their heads. I'm sorry, but I'm so angry to hear this I could screammmmm. Children that young can't do anything to advocate for themselves.:mad:

Okay, rant over.

I'm glad the client won her case, and I certainly hope the mom learned something from this experience.
 
GoldenBreeze said:
Then there should be a lot of parents getting sited for child endangerment. There is no way a toddler should have those chemicals in there hair. Any mom who would take an infant (1 yr old) to get a perm should be put on house arrest. Most 1yr olds can't talk well enough to tell somebody that they are getting burnt, and they still have a soft spot in their heads. I'm sorry, but I'm so angry to hear this I could screammmmm. Children that young can't do anything to advocate for themselves.:mad:

Okay, rant over.

I'm glad the client won her case, and I certainly hope the mom learned something from this experience.
Click to expand...

It's not just the parents, it is also the way relaxers are marketed for young children. Does anyone know if there is an age minimum or warning anywhere on or in the relaxer kit? I think I will check my box when I get home. Sounds like a class action to me!
 
CAPlush said:
It's not just the parents, it is also the way relaxers are marketed for young children. Does anyone know if there is an age minimum or warning anywhere on or in the relaxer kit? I think I will check my box when I get home. Sounds like a class action to me!
Click to expand...

I would think. The liability would be to great not too. I do agree that is child endangerment to relax a 1 year old hair.
 
angellazette said:
OMG!!! Is anyone else watching this? I can't believe this hairdresser...

A young girl went to get a relaxer and complained of burning throughout. The hairdresser even said herself that when she went to curl the hair she saw a raw pink patch on her neck. So she sprayed it with spritz and even put her hand in it!!! :eek: Just to see if the girl would react to it, even though she already told her she was burning.

Then they show the photos of the burn and it is so obvious that it's a chemical burn and the hairdresser AND her assistant are talking about that it's gel and buildup, not a burn. Are you serious!?!? They even said the relaxer lifted the "dirt" off her neck and that is why her neck was pink. Yeah it lifted the dirt, the skin, and everything else off her neck!

This lady has been in business 10 years and spitting ignorance like this. The girl and her mother even have medical proof that she suffered from a chemical burn and hairloss and the hairdresser says the doctor wouldn't know.

Well they won their case...over $2,430.
Click to expand...

:lachen: :lachen: :lachen: Too Funny!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ellebelle88
Relaxers aren't supposed to burn??? WORD!!!
Replies
0
Views
956
ellebelle88
ellebelle88
Krystle~Hime
Can I sue a hair salon for putting relaxer on my head?
Replies
13
Views
4K
mimi73
M
tasha
Burning
Replies
4
Views
1K
tasha
tasha
aloof one
That Judge Hatchett Episode is on!
Replies
5
Views
3K
Bint Yusef
Bint Yusef
2
She BURNED my hair!!!! Please Read!
Replies
20
Views
10K
ChocoKitty
ChocoKitty
Back
Top