If you want to be beautiful, you have to suffer, as the old saying goes. But even those who help others to be beautiful must occasionally have a certain capacity for suffering, as the operator of a beauty salon in the northern district found out about a year ago. A dissatisfied customer had freaked out in the store – which brought her before the district court as a defendant.
The trigger for the incident, as the accused and the injured party agreed, was a dispute over hair extensions, so-called extensions. The customer wanted to have this done in the salon, but that didn’t happen. The injured party stated that the procedure was much more complex than initially thought, since the old extensions built into the defendant’s hair had to be removed first. That’s why a second appointment was made for the next day to attach the new hair extensions.
The customer is said to have thrown two metal bowls at the salon operator
But the customer did not appear at the agreed time, the beautician continued, and she did not respond to calls either. Only when she was about to close the shop did the customer get in touch, reported the injured party. She was then persuaded to still attach the extensions. When the customer appeared, there were apparently discrepancies about the payment. According to the beautician, the customer had paid for the hairpieces at the time, but not for the work involved in attaching them or removing the old extensions.
After some back and forth, she gave the customer the box with the extensions and asked her to leave the store, the injured party continued. Then the other one got louder and louder, demanded that the hairpieces be attached to her immediately, she got really scared, said the beautician. Finally, the customer then threw things around, and two metal bowls hit the salon operator. A medical certificate from the following day certifies that the injured person has bruises in the arm and shoulder area. In addition to things, the accused also threw swear words around.
The accused also described the fact that there had been discrepancies. However, according to the statement made by her defense attorney, it was the salon operator who became verbally abusive. The accused also confirmed that things were thrown – but that’s what the beautician started with. She threw the box with the extensions in the direction of the customer, who then threw the box back and hit the metal bowls, which then fell on the floor.
An uninvolved passer-by confirms the version of the injured party
What, according to the testimony of an uninvolved witness, was somewhat different. The young man had passed the beauty salon on his way to go shopping when he heard there was an argument going on inside. He didn’t understand much, but it was probably about an open bill. As he walked on, he heard something rattling or cracking and turned around, the witness said. Then he saw how the defendant took something from the counter and threw it. He could not see whether the projectile hit anyone. He and another passer-by then went into the store to settle the dispute, later they called the police.
It was clear to the prosecutor that the accused had insulted the beautician, thrown objects at her and hit her at least once. The prosecutor asked for a suspended sentence of seven months. The fact that the accused did not have a criminal record and that the act was done in an emotional state can be credited to her, but it is to be held against the fact that the trigger – the attachment of the hairpieces did not materialize – was not particularly serious. In addition, there was at least one abstract danger from the throw, for example if the shell had hit the opponent on the head.
This, who also acted as a joint and adhesion plaintiff, also demanded compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of 2000 euros plus legal fees and the settlement of outstanding invoices through her lawyer.
The defense attorney, on the other hand, applied for an acquittal. Apart from the fact that the two women had differences about the attachment of the extensions, nothing was proven at all. Judge Vera Hörauf, on the other hand, largely followed the arguments of the public prosecutor’s office – but left it at a fine of 120 daily rates of 25 euros each. The injured party and the witness are credible, the injury was also confirmed by a certificate. However, this is not so serious that 2,000 euros in damages are due, the chairman called 500 euros as appropriate. The injured party could not sue for the outstanding bills in this procedure, they had to do so in a civil court. The verdict is not yet legally binding.