Woman sues Procter & Gamble, claiming hair dye burnt her scalp
By Emanuella Grinberg
Court TV
(Court TV) -- Katherine Keith bought a bottle of Clairol Natural Instincts hair color in June 2002, hoping to trade her black locks for a brunette bob.
Instead of achieving the new look she wanted, Keith claims she lost her hair, burnt her scalp and began to excrete pus from her eyeballs, despite following the directions.
She is seeking jury damages from Procter & Gamble, Clairol's distributor, in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Florida.
Her suit accuses the company of "negligently manufacturing, examining and testing" the chestnut brown hair color and selling it "in a defective and dangerous condition not fit for the use and purposes for which it was sold.
Keith's lawyer, Douglas Mohney, says she followed the instructions, even testing the product on a small strip of hair before applying it to her entire head.
"The most significant reactions occurred almost immediately," he said. "The hair falling out, the scarring and the swelling all occurred within 12 to 14 hours of her applying and rinsing the product."
The suit claims Keith also suffered a litany of physical and emotional side effects, from neck and back pain to muscle spasms and motor and sensory changes to post-traumatic anxiety and depression.
"Her hair has grown back in different patterns, but in the meantime, she's spent the past two years seeing internists, dermatologists, psychologists, you name it," Mohney said.
Lawyers for Procter & Gamble deny the manufacturer failed to sufficiently test the product or that it knowingly concealed any "latent defects."
"Procter & Gamble puts out the most thoroughly tested products on the market today," Helene Leslie, a spokesperson for Procter & Gamble, told Courttv.com after declining to comment on the pending litigation.
In its response to the suit, the company's lawyers list 35 broad defenses against the claim to cover the vague nature of the complaint, which does not specify how Keith used the product nor how or when the injuries occurred.
One defense claim is that some side effects are unforeseeable.
"The product ... had certain unavoidable, inherent characteristics that cannot be obviated under the state of scientific knowledge existing at the time," the response says. "The injuries were the result of unavoidable circumstances that could not have been prevented by anyone."
The company also blames Keith, attributing the alleged injuries to her misuse of the product, as well as an "idiosyncratic reaction" specific to Keith.
According to court documents, Keith approached Procter & Gamble asking for a $250,000 settlement before filing her suit. Her request was denied.
