Wall v. Gill
311 Ky. 796, 225 S.W.2d 670, 14 A.L.R. 2d 857 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patron who knowingly receives services from a student at a beauty school assumes the risk of injury arising from the student’s inexperience, and the school is not vicariously liable for the student's negligence, particularly when it does not derive pecuniary gain from the student's services.
Facts:
- An individual (the appellee) went to a college of beauty culture (the appellant) to receive a permanent wave.
- The college's students provided services to the public for practical experience, as permitted by state regulations.
- State regulations required signs stating "Work Done Exclusively by Students" and limited charges to the cost of materials, prohibiting the college from making a profit on these services.
- A student performed the permanent wave on the appellee at the regulated, reduced price.
- During the procedure, the appellee complained to the student on two occasions that she was being burned.
- Following the treatment, the appellee developed a severe burn on her head.
Procedural Posture:
- The patron (appellee) filed a negligence lawsuit against the beauty college (appellant) in a trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the patron.
- The beauty college (appellant) appealed the judgment to this court, with the patron serving as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a beauty school have vicarious liability for injuries a patron sustains due to a student's negligence when the school does not profit from the student's services and the patron knowingly accepted the services of a trainee?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cammack
No, a beauty school does not have vicarious liability under these circumstances because a patron assumes the risk of a student's inexperience. First, the court reasoned that the appellee, by knowingly accepting services from a student at a reduced cost, assumed the risk of the student's lack of expertise. This assumption of risk is not limited to minor errors like poor styling but includes all potential dangers, such as burns, that may result from treatment by an unqualified individual. Second, the court determined that the relationship between the school and the student is not one of master-servant that would impose vicarious liability. A crucial factor in this determination was that the school did not receive any pecuniary gain or profit from the student's services, as prices were set only to cover the cost of materials. This distinguishes the relationship from a typical employment scenario and centers it on education, thereby absolving the school of liability for the student's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision carves out an important exception to the doctrine of vicarious liability for vocational and trade schools where students perform services on the public for training purposes. By emphasizing the patron's assumption of risk and the school's non-profit motive regarding the services, the court creates a protective standard for such educational institutions. The ruling suggests that as long as a school is transparent about the student's status and does not profit from their work, it will be shielded from liability for the student's negligence. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries sustained in similar training environments, shifting the burden of risk onto the consumer who seeks a discounted service.
