In court filings, Burroughs told the Georgia Supreme Court that she started using chemical hair relaxing products to straighten her hair in or around 1995. Many of these products were manufactured by either Strength of Nature or L’Oreal, both of which are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that a woman suing the makers of a common hair-care product can continue litigating her claims against Strength of Nature and L’Oreal.
According to The Georgia Recorder, while the justices did not rule on the merits of plaintiff Kiara Burroughs’ case, the decision could have further-reaching consequences for similar product liability claims.
In court filings, Burroughs told the Georgia Supreme Court that she started using chemical hair relaxing products to straighten her hair in or around 1995. Many of these products were manufactured by either Strength of Nature or L’Oreal, both of which are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Burroughs says that she bought products from the two defendant companies between 1995 and 2001, and then again from 2002 to 2014. In 2018, though, Burroughs was diagnosed with uterine fibroids, a type of benign tumor that can form on the uterus. Uterine fibroids are often asymptomatic but, in some cases, they can trigger severe pain, urinary problems, and disruptions to the menstrual cycle.
Attorneys for Strength of Nature and L’Oreal moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Burroughs’ first purchase felt outside Georgia’s 10-year statute of repose, which states that a civil action, such as a lawsuit, cannot be filed “after ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing or otherwise bringing about the injury.”
The Georgia Court of Appeals sided with the companies, but Burroughs’s attorneys appealed, arguing that their client has standing because some of her purchases were made within the 10-year period defined by the statute of repose.
In its decision, the state Supreme Court questioned the lower court’s interpretation of “first sale,” ultimately finding that it refers to an initial retail sale to a user—not future resale.
“If that is what ‘first’ does in this provision—and it is—then there is no room for the manufacturers’ view that the word ‘first’ in this provision specifies which sale in a chain of sales to the same end user starts the statute of repose for the entire chain,” Justice Andrew Pinson wrote on behalf of the court. “That word cannot simultaneously carry a second, entirely different meaning and purpose, like a linguistic chameleon that changes its meaning and purpose on the fly depending on the facts of the case.”
Pinson, writing for a unanimous court, found that Burroughs may continue pressing her claims but is responsible for establishing that the units sold within the 10-year window were the cause of her diagnosis.
Sources
Court ruling allows Georgia woman to pursue lawsuit against makers of hair relaxer products
Georgia Supreme Court rules in favor of woman suing hair relaxer companies
Join the conversation!