Plaintiff's infant daughter allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of a ear piercings by the defendants. Plaintiff claims that because of defendants' negligent performance of the piercing, her daughter "sustained scar tissue on her left ear, an improperly placed earing hole in the right ear, external ear pain and the necessity of surgery for ear correction.

The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to summary judgment dismissal of the proceeding.

Among the issues that were raised by defendants was that the plaintiff's claims were barred pursuant to the doctrine of waiver and release because plaintiff mother signed a Standard Release and Authorization form which released the defendants from liability.

As to that issue, the court held: " a review of the language of the Standard Release and Authorization form discloses that it is written in broad and sweeping terms, and thus, fails to met [sic] the stringent standard requiring, in unequivocal terms, that it was the parties' intention to insulate the defendants from liability for Nicolette's injuries caused by their own negligence.... Therefore, the plaintiffs' negligence claims are not barred by the purported exculpatory language contained in the Standard Release and Authorization and defendants fail to demonstrate their entitlement to summary judgment on the grounds of waiver and release".

The court further found that there were other issues of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent with respect to the piercings.

Cummins v. Zale Corporation and Piercing Pagoda, NYLJ, 2/9/12