A few weeks after this incident, Ms D. sought compensation from the hairdresser for the damage caused. She blames a professional misconduct on the hairdresser. Without a response, she is taking her case to the court

In its judgment, the court of first instance points out that the hairdresser may incur contractual liability if he does not ensure that customer security. In that event, since it is an obligation of means, proof of fault on the part of the employee must be provided.

The court dismisses the complainant's applications.

It notes that:

• the mere testimony of Ms D.’s cousin, who was present at the time of the events, is not sufficient to assert with certainty the fault committed;
• the potential for alcohol overdose is not established;
• Ms D. did not dispute that she had received a hair diagnosis before the product was placed or that she had been informed of the essential characteristics of the service.

Mrs. D. is appealing this judgment. For her, the fault is characterized by the fact that the hairdresser did not perform the service in accordance with the rules of the art; she failed to fulfill her contractual obligation of safety by not giving beforehand the information on the products she was going to use.

The hairdresser disputes this argument. He states that the hairdresser complied with Ms D.’s request, informed her of the techniques used, questioned her about her hair history and stopped the application as soon as the client complained. He also claims that Ms D. may have lied, denying that she had used certain products or care likely to have caused that reaction.

Did the hairdresser fail to fulfill her safety obligation by not using all the means necessary to perform that service in accordance with the rules of the art?

Service-Public.fr is answering you :

In order to rule on this case, the Court of Appeal considers, first of all, that the hairdresser is required, in the performance of his services, to obligation of means and not of result.

In particular, he may be liable for any reaction to one of the products used on the hair as a professional. Thus, he must inform and advise his client, or even warn him against the use of such a substance because of the nature and condition of his hair. They are required to warn of side effects that may occur with a particular dye, perm, or hair straightening product, but they are no longer required to test the product first on a portion of the hair. Thus, in the event of a reaction with respect to the product used on the hair, it is up to the hairdresser to prove that the client has been informed of the risks as part of a prior diagnosis.

In support of that reasoning and of the certificate produced by the hairdresser, in which she states that she made a more in-depth diagnosis because she had ‘serious doubts about the techniques previously performed on her client’s hair’, the Court of Appeal considers that the hairdresser’s fault is characterized by the fact that it was all the more incumbent on the commission to warn it of the risks of such a service before performing it.

Since the hairdresser has failed to fulfill her contractual obligation of safety, Mrs. D. must be compensated for the damage suffered.