Amber Nicole Wright v. Farouk Systems, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24611
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wright, a Georgia resident who was 13 when her hair was bleached at a salon, sues Farouk Systems under Georgia law for a scalp burn from Blondest Blonde allegedly due to hot spots and inadequate warnings.
- Salon technician Shenker mixed Blondest Blonde with Color Generator, applied via foiling, and used a hair dryer; Wright experienced a burn during the process.
- Wright developed a second/third-degree scalp burn, later requiring graft surgery; medical testimony linked the burn to chemical exposure.
- The district court granted Farouk summary judgment on all claims after excluding Westman’s hot-spot testimony as a Daubert issue and excluding other evidence as inadmissible or non-substantially similar.
- Wright argued Weiner’s affidavit (reporting statements by Farouk’s chairman about formulation problems) should be admitted as party-admission evidence; the court found potential admissibility but remanded for Rule 26(a) disclosure issues.
- The court also found no abuse in excluding other overheating incidents and ultimately affirmed on failure-to-warn claims while vacating and remanding on evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Weiner’s affidavit and Rule 26 disclosure | Weiner’s affidavit contains non-hearsay admissions by Farouk’s chairman about hot spots. | Weiner’s statements were not timely disclosed and may be excluded. | Remand to decide admissibility and Rule 26 issues; not resolved on the merits here. |
| Admissibility of other overheating incidents evidence | Prior incidents show a pattern to support defect claims. | Incidents are not sufficiently similar to Wright’s case. | Not an abuse of discretion to exclude; substantial similarity required. |
| Whether Wright abandoned negligent design/manufacture claims | Keep those claims viable with record evidence. | Claims abandoned; entitle Farouk to summary judgment. | Affirmed summary judgment on these claims due to abandonment. |
| Whether summary judgment on failure-to-warn claims was proper | Warnings were inadequate to prevent burns. | Warnings sufficient under record. | Affirmed summary judgment on failure-to-warn claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998) (review evidentiary rulings at summary judgment for abuse of discretion)
- Hessen ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641 (11th Cir. 1990) (evidence of earlier occurrences admissible only if substantially similar)
- Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; shifting burdens)
- Bivins v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2008) (admissions of a party opponent; evidentiary error in exclusion)
- Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1999) (affidavits must contain admissible facts; hearsay rules apply)