## Facts

- The defendants operated a beauty shop in Flint, Michigan.
- The plaintiff received a bleach-and-color treatment at the shop and suffered head and facial injuries.
- The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and sought damages for his injuries.
- At trial, the defendants sought to offer testimony about the customary standard of care used by beauty shops in the area for the type of hair treatment involved.
- The trial court refused to allow the defendants to present that testimony about local custom or standard practice.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded damages.
- The defendants moved for a new trial, arguing that excluding their standard-of-care testimony was error affecting the liability determination.
- The trial court granted a new trial, but limited the retrial to liability only, leaving the original damages award intact.
- The defendants appealed the limitation of the new trial to liability only, and the plaintiff cross-appealed the grant of a new trial.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by excluding testimony from the defendants about the customary standard of care used by local beauty shops for the treatment at issue?
2. After granting a new trial based on an error affecting liability, could the trial court properly limit the new trial to liability only and leave the damages verdict undisturbed?

## Decision

- Yes. Evidence of customary practice in the relevant business was admissible as evidence bearing on reasonable care, and the trial court erred by excluding the defendants’ testimony about the local standard of care.
- No. On this record, liability was contested and not clearly settled, and the evidentiary error went to liability; therefore, the new trial could not fairly be limited to liability alone.
- The appellate court modified the order granting a new trial so that the new trial would be on all issues, including damages, and affirmed the order as modified.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence cases involving services or trades, evidence of the customary practice of others engaged in the same business in the same locality is generally admissible as one fact the jury may consider on the question of reasonable care.
- Proof of custom does not, by itself, fix the legal standard of care; the jury must still decide whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances.
- A new trial may be limited to fewer than all issues only when the issue to be retried is distinct and separable and the remainder of the verdict can stand as a fair determination without risk of injustice.
- When liability is disputed and the error prompting a new trial bears on liability, damages ordinarily must be retried as well because the issues are often closely connected.

## Conclusion

Doutre v. Niec holds that the defendants in a beauty-shop negligence action were entitled to present testimony about the customary standard of care used by local beauty shops, and that once a new trial was granted because liability was affected by the exclusion of that evidence, the retrial had to be on all issues; the Michigan Court of Appeals therefore modified the trial court’s order to require a new trial on both liability and damages and affirmed the order as modified.


Doutre v. Niec, 138 N.W.2d 501 (1965)