The legal battle over the potential health impacts of chemical hair relaxers took a significant turn this week as the Georgia Supreme Court allowed a woman’s lawsuit against the manufacturers to proceed. Kiara Burroughs, who developed uterine fibroids after years of using hair relaxer products from Strength of Nature and L’Oréal, may now continue her case after a previous lower court dismissal.
According to an article from FOX 5 Atlanta, Burroughs began using the products in 1995, potentially exposing herself to harmful chemicals purportedly linked to cancer. Despite the manufacturers' insistence on safety, and their argument based on Georgia's statute of repose, the Supreme Court found those claims insufficient to stop the lawsuit.
This ruling comes as an overturn of the Georgia Court of Appeals decision, which had favored the companies citing the 10-year statute of repose. Justice Andrew Pinson clarified in the unanimous opinion that the "first sale" referred to in state law means the retail sale to an individual consumer, not necessarily the initial sale limiting the entire chain of purchases, a clarification which may have broader implications for product liability claims.
In a victory for Burroughs and potentially others with similar grievances, the Georgia Recorder reported her attorney Elizabeth Stone's comments, "We look forward to continuing to pursue this litigation on behalf of Ms. Burroughs." Stone added that the discovery phase of the trial would shed light on what the manufacturers knew about the possible health effects of their products, and that the court's opinion could affect all types of product liability claims in Georgia.
As for the defense, both companies expressed their dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's ruling. An official response from L’Oréal, obtained by the Georgia Recorder, stated, "We are disappointed by today’s ruling. However, this ruling only pertains to a procedural matter and we are pleased the Georgia Supreme Court made clear its decision does not relate to the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries." The company also reaffirmed its commitment to product safety and compliance with regulations. The ultimate burden of proof remains with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the products used within the 10-year window caused the injury.
