## Facts

- Ruth Newmark regularly visited defendants’ beauty parlor for weekly wash-and-set appointments.
- Newmark asked about a permanent wave offered at a special price and relied on her stylist’s recommendation for a solution suitable for her hair.
- During the procedure, Newmark felt burning on her scalp; the condition continued after she left the salon.
- Overnight, her forehead became red and blistered, and she suffered substantial hair loss.
- A dermatologist diagnosed contact dermatitis of the scalp caused by the permanent wave solution.
- Newmark and her husband sued the beauty parlor operators alleging negligence and breach of express and implied warranty arising from the permanent wave treatment and product used.
- At trial, the court withdrew the warranty theories on the ground that the transaction was a service, leaving only negligence; the jury found for defendants.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding the jury should consider implied warranty as to the lotion; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a beauty parlor that supplies and applies a permanent wave solution as part of a paid treatment may be held liable on strict products-liability/implied-warranty grounds, despite the service component of the transaction.
2. Whether it was error to remove warranty/strict-liability theories from the jury and submit the case solely on negligence.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that a beauty parlor engaged in a “sales-service hybrid” may be subject to strict liability and implied warranty for harm caused by a dangerously defective product it supplies and applies in the regular course of business.
- The Court ruled that the jury should be allowed to decide whether the solution was defective and whether the defect proximately caused Newmark’s injuries, in addition to any negligence claim.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability may apply in hybrid transactions where a business both renders a service and supplies a product integral to the transaction.
- A provider is not categorically insulated from implied warranty/strict liability merely because the overall transaction is labeled a “service,” when the provider selects and puts a product into use on the consumer.
- Policy reasons supporting strict liability include the business’s ability to select and control products used, the consumer’s reliance on the provider’s choice and skill, and the business’s ability to distribute accident costs through pricing and insurance.
- Whether a product is defective and whether that defect caused the plaintiff’s harm are typically jury questions when supported by evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that a beauty parlor that supplies and applies a chemical solution as part of a paid permanent wave can be treated like a product supplier for strict liability and implied-warranty purposes, requiring a new trial where those theories are submitted to the jury alongside negligence.


Newmark v. Gimbel’s Inc., 258 A.2d 697 (N.J. 1969)