Sam's Beauty School is a privately owned beauty school that trains cosmetologists to earn their cosmetology licenses to become hairstylists and colorists. Sam's is open to the public for all hair services; students perform hair services for clients under the supervision of licensed cosmetologists that work at Sam's. Jan went the Sam's to have her hair colored dark brown as she had done many times, although this was Jan's first time as a client at Sam's. Tom, a student trainee at Sam's, colored her hair. Jan's hair turned green and fell out within 24 hours. Jan had never had any problems with hair color previously. Jan sued Sam's for negligence. Who wins and why? Be sure to provide the elements of negligence and how they would be applied in this case. Also, raise any defenses to negligence that Sam's may have.

My answer :

Jan is likely to win in the lawsuit against Sam.

Under tort law, for a plaintiff to be successful in a negligence lawsuit, he or she must prove the following elements against a defendant: the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of professional care, the duty was breached, and as a result of the breach, the plaintiff suffered harm or an economical loss.

Certainly, as a professional service provide to the public, Sam had a legal duty to ensure his or her services are established in a professional manner. This explains why even though students performed the services, they were supervised with licensed cosmetologists to make sure the services provided exercised professional care. Therefore, Sam owed a professional duty of care to Jan.

However, the professional duty of care was violated when Jan's hair turned green and rather than the intended brown color. As a result of the breach, Jan suffered harm: her hair fell out within 24 hours.

Negligence defense

Certainly, the only defense that Sam can raise in this case would be assumption of risks. With reference to the case, Jan knew exactly services were provide by students, which meant there are risks of lack of professional care, but still she went to Sam shop for hair services.

However, with supervision of a licensed cosmetologists on the students, the defense cannot apply in the case. This is because negligence happened under supervision of a professional who was expected to ensure professional care is established in the services provided. Therefore, it is reasonable that Sam committed a tort of negligence against Jan, which means Jan will win the negligence lawsuit.

*** Doctor's reply:

You have properly identified some of the elements and provided some of the analysis of negligence in this case;l but there is some analysis missing. How would you define negligence? There are 5 elements of negligence, you have identified duty and breach of duty; what are the other three and how would they be applied to our case study? Your analysis of the assumption of the risk is good. That said, did you consider contributory negligence? Could there be something that Jan did that would have caused the chemical reaction?

Your initial post contained some good analysis but was missing other parts of the analysis. It is essential that when discussing a theory of law, you present all elements of the theory required for the plaintiff to prevail in their case. You then need to take the elements and apply them to the facts as presented. In your reply, you listed the elements properly; but then didn't move forward to provide the requisite analysis. You did a good job identifying the assumption of the risk as a proper defense that the defendant could raise.

*** The doctor asked me to answer again correctly based on his notes in his reply to me.

please help me with full answer, Thanks in advance