MovieChat Forums > The People's Court (1997) Discussion > Glasses at the hair salon

Glasses at the hair salon

posted 8 years ago by Drew_Darko
3 replies | jump to latest

I have been wearing glasses nearly all my life and every time I have gotten my hair cut, I either take my glasses off and set them down on the counter myself, or the stylist will prompt me to do so. And you can bet that if my glasses were to disappear during the appointment (because I am practically blind without them) I would hold the salon responsible. I just feel like there's an implicit understanding that my glasses should be safe for the thirty minutes or so I'm not wearing them. It's not like they can cut my hair with my glasses on, I HAVE to take them off. But I've never thought about bringing my own case and holding my glasses myself.

I dunno, have I been doing it wrong all this time??? Whether you think the guy was crazy or overreacted (and honestly, I don't think he overreacted in the moment. He couldn't see and that one lady was making fun of him. He didn't behave badly IMO until he wrote that stuff online) I still think he should have won the case.

What do you think??

[–] Gubbio 8 years ago

What do you think??

I understand your points. I was wondering similar things.

When I get a haircut, the glasses go on the counter in front of me. What else are you supposed to do with them??? If you had a shirt with a pocket, I suppose you could put them there.

Milian acted like it was the man's fault for placing the glasses where he did. 

My question is, what legal responsibility does an establishment have for your glasses?

I don't feel this case answered the question. 

[–] rrattbbooyy 8 years ago

Whether or not a shop owner is responsible for their customers' lost or stolen property is based on a legal concept called "bailment".

And it varies from state to state. If the bailment laws in the plaintiff's state favor the shop owner, the customer has no recourse. The owner wouldn't even have to display a disclaimer saying they're not responsible for lost or stolen property either, it would be implied. Usually you would see those "not our fault" signs in places where bailment laws favor customers.

So assuming MM knew which state this happened in and ruled correctly based on bailment law in that state, the only way the plaintiff could have won is if the hairdresser had specifically agreed to watch his glasses. And nothing like that ever came up during the case.

So you should check the bailment laws in your state, and if they favor shop owners over customers, remember to just hold onto your glasses instead of putting them down anywhere. :-)

[–] LittleBrother55 8 years ago

I agree with you and Gubbio.

I've never claimed to know what's actually in Judge Milian's head.

But I have noticed that over the past several months, there are cases where JM is noticeably unsympathetic to one side. I don't mean emotionally unsympathetic, although think that's part of it-- I mean inclined to be harshly dismissive of the litigant's position.

Not long ago, there was a case where a woman sued the contractor who installed granite countertops in her kitchen. The countertops became stained or discolored.

It turned out that the countertops hadn't been sealed. The plaintiff attempted to argue that the contractor, who had superior knowledge, hadn't informed her that applying sealant was required to prevent such permanent staining.

Apart from the legalities, this was the type of case where normally JM would be receptive to the argument that if the customer (the plaintiff) had been properly informed of the need to apply sealant when the countertops were installed, she would certainly have had it done.

In other words, why would a customer not authorize applying sealant if they knew it was required to prevent their new, expensive granite countertops from being ruined?

Instead, JM sourly did what she did to the eyeglasses guy: blamed the victim.

She just sort of backhanded the plaintiff, more or less telling her that she should've known the unsealed countertops would be ruined. She let the contractor off the hook-- even though she's from a family of contractors, dontcha know, and knows more about it than the litigants.

The common denominator in these cases is that JM abandons her usual thoughtful consideration and analysis, decides to give the litigant who's rubbing her the wrong way the bum's rush, and comes up with some half-baked legal theory to cover her... er, tracks.

To me, it's always obvious from her facial expressions and body language when JM is disposed (or indisposed) to lapse into mean-spirited victim-blaming.