FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Plaintiff's Claim
Tiana Petovich, 21, sued salon owner Awa Soul.
Ms. Petovich sought the return of $240.
This money was paid for dreadlock braids.
She claimed the service caused her pain and discomfort.
Initial Contact and Service
Ms. Petovich called Awa Soul's salon on December 17th.
She inquired about real dreadlocks.
The salon quoted her $75 for real dreadlocks.
On December 18th, Ms. Petovich had fox dreadlocks installed.
These were fake dreadlocks.
She paid $240 for the service.
She also gave a $20 tip.
The stylist recommended burning the ends to prevent unraveling.
Ms. Petovich declined this recommendation.
She experienced pain in her scalp after the installation.
The stylist told her this pain was normal.
The stylist said the pain would subside in one to two days.
First Return to the Salon
On December 19th, Ms. Petovich returned to the salon.
Two strands of her dreadlocks were unwinding.
The salon re-wound these strands.
They also burned the ends.
This burning of the ends was part of the initial service offer.
Ms. Petovich's scalp was still in pain.
She stated she spoke to an employee on this visit.
She did not speak to the defendant, Ms. Soul, directly.
Attempted Removal and Refund Request
On December 20th, Ms. Petovich tried to return to the salon.
She wanted the dreadlocks removed due to extreme pain.
The shop was closed that day.
She removed the dreadlocks herself that night.
She used her hands to untwist them.
On December 21st, Ms. Petovich went to the salon.
She requested a refund.
She explained her hair was ripped out.
She also reported suffering from painful bumps.
She claimed she lost a lot of hair.
This was the first time she spoke to Ms. Soul.
The Plaintiff's Allegations
Ms. Petovich claimed the dreadlocks were installed too tightly.
This caused her extreme pain.
She stated the hair was "extremely tight."
The pain was so severe she had to remove them herself.
She also alleged the hair product was not rinsed before application.
She believed this led to an allergic reaction.
Ms. Petovich stated the hair was pulled straight from the package.
She claimed the package contained instructions to rinse the hair.
She said this was contrary to the package instructions.
She reported suffering from painful bumps.
She also claimed significant hair loss.
The Hair Product Packaging
Ms. Petovich presented the empty package of the hair product.
She claimed it contained instructions to rinse the hair.
Judge Judy examined the package.
The judge noted it contained general washing instructions.
These instructions were for the hair product itself.
They were not a requirement for a pre-application rinse.
The package stated, "The following are general washing instructions for your hair product."
It also said, "Wash and cool lukewarm water."
It specified, "Do not wash in hot water using a mild conditioning shampoo."
It instructed to "Gently clean the scalp and let the shampoo run through the water."
Judge Judy stated the package did not say the hair had to be washed before use.
This contradicted Ms. Petovich's claim about the rinsing requirement.
Contradictions in Testimony
Ms. Petovich initially stated she did not speak to Ms. Soul until December 21st.
She later confirmed she had a procedure done on December 19th.
During this procedure, she interacted with salon staff.
She described staff fixing unwinding dreadlocks.
They also burned the ends on this visit.
This implied interaction with the salon's service.
Ms. Petovich claimed the hair was not rinsed before application.
She based this on the package instructions.
Judge Judy clarified the package instructions.
The judge stated they were for general washing.
They were not for a pre-application rinse.
The Defendant's Perspective
Ms. Soul stated Ms. Petovich called a day before her appointment.
Ms. Petovich asked if the salon did dreadlocks.
Ms. Soul confirmed they did natural locks.
She quoted $75 for starting natural locks.
Ms. Soul did not elaborate further on the initial conversation.
Judge Judy's Questions and Observations
Judge Judy asked Ms. Petovich about her satisfaction with the job.
She asked why Ms. Petovich gave a gratuity.
Ms. Petovich said she gave a tip because the stylist was standing on her feet.
Judge Judy noted Ms. Petovich paid the bill and left on December 18th.
The judge questioned Ms. Petovich about the pain.
Ms. Petovich said the stylist told her the pain would go away.
The stylist said it would be one to two days of pain.
Judge Judy asked, "Colton, what are two days of pain?"
She addressed Ms. Soul as a business lady.
Ms. Soul confirmed she had her shop for 10 years.
She stated she had five stylists.
Ms. Soul confirmed she made a good living.
The Turning Point
The judge's clarification of the hair product instructions was a turning point.
It weakened Ms. Petovich's argument about an allergic reaction.
The claim that unrinsed hair caused the reaction was less credible.
The revelation of the second salon visit for repairs was also significant.
Ms. Petovich returned the day after the initial service.
She had unwinding dreadlocks fixed.
The ends were burned, which she initially declined.
This showed Ms. Petovich's continued interaction with the salon.
It also showed the salon's attempt to address her concerns.
Judge Judy's Reasoning
Judge Judy acknowledged Ms. Petovich was a dissatisfied customer.
She noted Ms. Petovich returned in a relatively short period of time.
The judge assumed Ms. Petovich took the dreadlocks out herself due to discomfort.
She questioned why people undergo such procedures.
Judge Judy stated the "smart thing to do" was to give Ms. Petovich her money back.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She awarded Ms. Petovich $240.
The case concluded with this ruling.