Biren Law Group

Los Angeles Injury Lawyers

Call Now - No Risk Consultation 310.896.4345
  • Home
  • Attorneys and Paralegals
  • About Our Firm
  • Personal Injury
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Case Results
  • Call Today
  • Email Us
  • Our Map
  • Menu

Wrongful death lawsuit alleges business ignored allergy warning

  • Why Hire Us?

    Work with an Award-Winning Personal Injury Law Firm for Optimal Results

    Reasons to Choose Biren Law Group
  • Case Results

    We Have Recovered More Than Half a Billion in Verdicts & Settlements

    View Our Case Victories
  • Free Case Evaluation

    You Do Not Pay Any Fees Unless We Recover Money for You

    Risk-Free Evaluation
Menu | Home | Previous Post | Next Post

Wrongful death lawsuit alleges business ignored allergy warning

Posted on Aug 5, 2014 12:00am PDT

Food, drug and chemical allergies seem to be much more common than they once were. Thankfully, they also tend to be treated more seriously than in the past as well. Two or three decades ago, for example, few people had even heard of a peanut allergy. Now, food manufacturers and restaurants are required to post warnings that certain foods either contain peanuts or may have come into contact with them.

Allergic reactions can be fatal. As such, businesses should never ignore or fail to respond to customer warnings about certain allergies they have. Recently, a grieving husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a hair salon that allegedly ignored his wife’s warning that she was allergic to ammonia and could not use products containing it.

In 2012, the wife and mother of two visited a Las Vegas salon in order to get her hair dyed. According to the lawsuit, she warned the employees about her ammonia allergy before receiving service. The lawsuit states that “in spite of being on notice of the allergy to ammonia, defendants applied a chemical containing ammonia to [the woman’s] hair and scalp, causing her to sustain severe and permanent injuries and death.”

The woman died approximately seven weeks after getting exposed to the ammonia products at the salon. During those six weeks, she received “extensive medical treatment,” according to her husband.

It is difficult for most reasonable people to comprehend why such a warning would have been ignored or, at best, forgotten. In light of the high risks, it seems unlikely that the woman would have mentioned the allergy casually or failed to make herself clear. Hopefully, this lawsuit will be a reminder to all businesses that customer allergies must never be taken lightly.

Source: Courthouse News Service, " Widower Says Hair Dye Killed his Wife," Mike Heuer, Aug. 5, 2014

Categories: Wrongful Death
Permalink

Have Questions?

Contact us now for a risk-free consultation.

Name is Required Email is Required
Invalid Email Address
Phone is Required Invalid Phone Number * Required Message is Required
Slide the Arrow to Unlock Slide the arrow to unlock the form.
Send My Information

Recent Posts

  • First Pedestrian Fatality Involving Autonomous Uber Shines a Spotlight on New Legal Issues
  • Nation Focuses in on Driverless Vehicle Technology After Fatal Pedestrian Accident Involving Self-Driving Uber Car
  • $3.2 Million Award for Philadelphia Bicyclist Injured by Sinkhole Highlights Government Liability in Personal Injury Lawsuits
  • Self-Driving Uber Trucks Now Delivering Cargo on Arizona Highways: Can They Pose Risks to Public Safety?
  • Elements of a Personal Injury Case
  • Regulators Face Same Concerns Following Washington Amtrak Crash
  • Premises Liability, the Law of Attractive Nuisances & Child Injuries
  • What's the Difference Between Catastrophic Injury & Personal Injury Lawsuits?

Most Popular

  • The Dangers of Sitting Too Close to the Steering Wheel
  • Can You Sue for Laser Burns from a Cosmetic Procedure?
  • California Car Accident Statistics

Related Posts

  • When to Contact a Wrongful Death Attorney
  • Important Information for Victims of Sexual Assault: What You Need to Know About Filing a Lawsuit

Archives

  • 2018 (9)
    • March (4)
    • February (3)
    • January (2)
  • 2017 (38)
    • December (3)
    • November (3)
    • October (2)
    • September (3)
    • August (5)
    • July (2)
    • June (4)
    • May (4)
    • April (1)
    • March (5)
    • February (3)
    • January (3)
  • 2016 (14)
    • December (1)
    • November (4)
    • October (1)
    • September (3)
    • August (2)
    • April (1)
    • January (2)
  • 2015 (33)
    • December (2)
    • November (4)
    • October (2)
    • September (3)
    • August (4)
    • July (2)
    • May (1)
    • April (3)
    • March (6)
    • February (5)
    • January (1)
  • 2014 (86)
    • December (6)
    • November (8)
    • October (2)
    • September (3)
    • August (14)
    • July (8)
    • June (6)
    • May (10)
    • April (6)
    • March (11)
    • February (6)
    • January (6)
  • 2013 (113)
    • December (7)
    • November (12)
    • October (18)
    • September (11)
    • August (14)
    • July (16)
    • June (15)
    • May (8)
    • April (6)
    • March (4)
    • February (2)

Attorneys and Paralegals

  • Matthew B.F. Biren
  • Andrew G.O. Biren
  • John A. Roberts
  • Anne M. Huarte
  • Karin Hayes
  • Monica Martinez
  • Firm Blog

    Our Recent Articles

Catastrophic Injuries

How Can We Help You?

  • Amputations/Loss of Function
  • Brain Injuries
  • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Burns
  • Coma
  • Motor Function Loss
  • Sensory Loss
  • Broken Bones & Fractures
  • Orthopedic Injuries
  • Home
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
Biren Law Group

Call Today (310) 896-4345

Biren Law Group Biren Law Group
Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer

12301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90025 View Map
Phone: (310) 896-4345 Local Phone: (310) 476-3031
Website: http://www.biren.com/
© 2018 All Rights Reserved.
Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.