Your honor, my client clearly communicated that the shampoo and conditioner were specifically for her green hair. It's unreasonable to expect her to provide a detailed chemical analysis before allowing a guest to use her shower. The friend should have clarified her understanding instead of making assumptions and grabbing whatever she saw. My client should not be blamed for her friend's mistake.
The plaintiff claims she informed her friend, but her communication was vague and easily misinterpreted. Any reasonable person would assume 'shampoo for green hair' means it's a high-quality shampoo to maintain hair health, not a dye. The plaintiff should have been explicit about the presence of dye to prevent such a mishap. Her lack of clarity and foresight caused the damage, and she now feigns innocence.
The plaintiff provided a warning, albeit somewhat ambiguous, about the shampoo being for 'green hair.' However, the defendant's assumption that it was a special shampoo without seeking clarification was imprudent. While the plaintiff could have been more explicit, the defendant bears a greater responsibility for her actions. She should have confirmed the nature of the shampoo before use. Therefore, the defendant is primarily at fault for the green hair incident.