Prepared by Candice Facts: Claus purchases a 1955 Plymouth Plaza 6 for Helen as a mother’s day gift. Nova Southeastern. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960) Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc. His wife, plaintiff Helen Henningsen, was injured while driving it and instituted suit against both defendants to recover damages on account of her injuries. '1 For a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. position see Frumerand Friedman, Products Liability (1978). Brief Fact Summary. Issue However, due to the gross inequality in bargaining positions occupied by an automobile dealer and a consumer, a disclaimer of liability will not be enforced if it is not brought to the purchaser’s attention or it is not clear and explicit. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Suit. He Home » Case Briefs Bank » Torts » Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief Torts • Add Comment Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. Plaintiff Claus H. Henningsen purchased a Plymouth automobile, manufactured by defendant Chrysler Corporation, from defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc. His wife, plaintiff Helen Henningsen, was injured while driving it and instituted suit against both defendants to recover damages on account of her injuries. o Breach of Express and implied warranties and for negligence. 1. Trial Court. Rule. It was … Consider the facts of a commonly studied case of Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, dealing with the sale of a car with a defective steering wheel. On May 7, 1955 Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen visited the place of business of Bloomfield Motors, Inc., an authorized De Soto and Plymouth dealer, to look at a Plymouth. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Cited Cases . Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. You also agree to abide by our. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Tort Liability for Owners of Wild and Domestic Animals; Rylands v. Fletcher; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Winterbottom v. Wright; Foster v. Preston Mill Co. Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. The Supreme Court of New Jersey Decided May 9, 1960. Legal Blogs; Legal Forms; GAO Reports; Product Recalls; Patents; Trademarks; Countries; More... Legal Marketing . Brief Fact Summary Mrs. Henningsen was driving her new Chrysler when the steering wheel spun in her hands causing her to veer and crash into a highway sign. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Here, Defendant did not make Plaintiffs aware of the language on the back of the purchase contract, and Defendant never addressed the language with Plaintiffs. T. ORT ... cases,3 plaintiffs sue to recover for injury to their reputations. One-Sentence Takeaway: Automobile manufacturers and dealers cannot disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability. Economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet but not physically. Professor Epstein 535 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr. While Mrs. Henningsen was driving the car the steering while was working dysfunctional. As to particular products, the doctrine of strict liability had its genesis in food and drink. See also: Prosser, "The Assault upon the Citadel (Strict They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. 6 (1962) 377 Pacific Reporter 2d 897. Subsequently, Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors abolished privity as a defense to a similar action predicated on breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The Supreme Court of New Jersey Decided May 9, 1960. 364*364 Mr. Bernard Chazen argued the cause for plaintiffs (Mr. Carmen … 2d 1]; General Motors Corp. v. Dodson, 47 Tenn.App. Is the limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and enforceable? Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. Daly v. General Motors Corp Case Brief - Rule of Law: The principle of comparative negligence can be applied in strict products liability cases to reduce a . 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960) CLAUS H. HENNINGSEN AND HELEN HENNINGSEN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. RSS Subscribe: 20 ... State Case Law; California; Florida; New York; Texas; More... Other Databases. Plaintiffs Claus and Helen Henningsen sued Defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc., for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability imposed by the Uniform Sales Act after Helen Henningsen was injured when the steering mechanism of the car … Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358 [161 A.2d 69, 84-96, 75 A.L.R. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Contracts Brief Fact Summary. Prosser fittingly credits New Jersey with having administered the crucial blow *231 upon the "citadel of privity" in the historic Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. case, 32 N.J. 358 (1960). Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. NOTE. Facts Henningsen’s wife (plaintiff) bought a new car from Bloomfield Motors (Bloomfield) (defendant) and ten days after the purchase, the car’s steering wheel spun in her hands and the car … Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 5 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. (1960) 161 Atlantic Reporter 2d 69. Plaintiffs Claus and Helen Henningsen sued Defendant Bloomfield Motors, Inc., for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability imposed by the Uniform Sales Act after Helen Henningsen was injured when the steering mechanism of the car Plaintiffs purchased from Defendant malfunctioned.