£3,863 awarded for burns from beauty treatment

The female Claimant was awarded total damages of £3,863.00 when she suffered burn injuries during a beauty treatment.

Accident circumstances

The Claimant was aged 46 at the date of injury when she attended a beauty salon owned by the Defendant for a hot stone massage.

Upon arrival at the salon she completed a health questionnaire and was then taken to one of the rooms for the treatment. The beautician took the stones from a water heater and placed them on a table which was covered with a towel. She then asked the Claimant to lie down on the stones.

The stones initially felt hot to the Claimant but she became used to it. When the beautician had finished massaging the Claimants arms and legs she removed the stones and asked the Claimant to turn over onto her stomach.

When the Claimant stood up her back felt uncomfortable and upon looking in the mirror she noticed that there were several red raised areas where the stones had been. One area was particularly worse than the others and blisters were visible.

The beautician apologised and placed a cold cloth on the injury, stating that clients sometimes had a reaction to the stones.

After leaving the salon the pain in the Claimant's back increased and she noticed that there was a large blister on the side of her back. She therefore returned to the salon where she again received an apology and was provided with a refund.

Injury Details

The injuries to her back were later confirmed as burns by her GP. Four of them healed within six weeks but one was much deeper and had developed a large blister. This was particularly painful and did not heal for a further nine months. The hypersensitivity continued for around fifteen months after the accident.

The Claimant found it uncomfortable to sit and struggled with domestic activities. She was also conscious of the appearance of a 4cm diameter scar on her back which impacted on her choice of clothes. Medical evidence suggested the appearance would improve and she would no longer suffer with self-consciousness by five years after the accident.

Conclusion

The Defendant denied liability and stated that the Claimant must have had sensitive skin which she failed to mention when completing the initial questionnaire. The Claimant therefore issued proceedings and the matter progressed to a hearing where the Judge awarded her total damages of £3,863.00. Of this, £3750.00 was in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity with the balance being made up of care cots and expenses.