Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Prosser
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
Citation:32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Mr. Henningsen purchased a 1955 Plymouth automobile from Bloomfield Motors (co-defendant) for his wife, Mrs. Henningsen (plaintiff), as a Christmas gift. Mr. Henningsen did not read the 8 ½ inches of fine print on the back of the contract for the purchase of the automobile. Included in the fine print was a clause that stated the manufacturer and the dealer gave no express or implied warranties other than to the replacement of defective parts within 90 days or before the automobile had been driven 4,000 miles. One day while Mrs. Henningsen was driving the automobile, “something went wrong” with the steering gear. The automobile suddenly turned sharply and crashed into a wall. Mrs. Henningsen was badly injured as a result of the accident. She sued both the manufacturer of the car, Chrysler Corporation (co-defendant), and the retail dealer, Bloomfield Motors. She alleged negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The court dismissed Mrs. Henningsen’s negligence claims. The sole issue presented to the jury was of implied warranty of merchantability. The court found in favor of Mrs. Henningsen. Chrysler Corporation and Bloomfield Motors appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.