The Supreme Court of New Jersey Decided May 9, 1960. The New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that change was needed and issued an opinion — Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that quickly would change the world of products liability and consumer protection. Philadelphia Electric Company v. Hercules, Inc. and Gould, Inc. Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. One-Sentence Takeaway: Automobile manufacturers and dealers cannot disclaim and/or limit the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff purchased a new car. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. (1960) Rule of Law: Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. The Supreme Court of New Jersey Decided May 9, 1960. Disclaimers are not enforceable where the waiver language is not explicit in the contract nor mentioned specifically by the salesperson. At the time, … 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. They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960 161 A.2d 69. Brief Fact Summary. From N.J., Reporter Series. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC..... 327. 364*364 Mr. Bernard Chazen argued the cause for plaintiffs (Mr. Carmen … Please check your email and confirm your registration. It was … Facts: Rix was injured when the pickup he was driving was hit from behind by a General Motors cab which was equipped with a water tank after the sale. Issue Henningsen v Bloomfield Motors 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960) discussed in Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 25-26. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 1960 N.J. LEXIS 213, 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (N.J. 1960). Cited Cases . Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Contracts Brief Fact Summary. . Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, The Requirement Of A Record For Enforceability: The Statute Of Frauds, Basic Assumptions: Mistakes, Impracticability And Frustration, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corporation, O'Callaghan v. Waller & Beckwith Realty Co, Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc, Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc, Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram, 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 1960 N.J. 213, 75 A.L.R.2d 1. 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 6 (1962) 377 Pacific Reporter 2d 897. While she was driving the car, the steering mechanism failed, leading to a serious accident and serious injury to the wife. 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 … Plaintiff sued GM for … Brief Fact Summary. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. Email | Print | Comments (0) View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . Is the limited liability clause of the purchase contract valid and enforceable? A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Brief Fact Summary. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Brief Fact Summary. Questions and Notes..... 331 § B. T. HE . upon the 'citadel of privity' in the historic Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. case, 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (1960). They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. Plaintiff sues under the implied warranty provided by the uniform sales act. address. Plaintiff brought suit claiming negligence, but the case was dismissed by the trial court due to a disclaimer contained in the sales contract for the car. Co. v. Anderson-Weber, Inc., 252 Iowa 1289 [110 N.W.2d 449, 455-456]; Pabon v. Hackensack Auto Sales, Inc., 63 N.J. Super. 4 Coca-ColaBottling Works v. Lyons (1927) 111 Southern Reporter 305. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. 33 N.J. 247 - HASTINGS BY HASTINGS v. HASTINGS, The Supreme Court of New Jersey. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case under an implied warranty theory against the manufacturer. Rix v. General Motors Corp case brief Rix v. General Motors Corp case brief 1986. They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. Email | Print | Comments (0) View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . Brief Fact Summary. Helen Henningsen (Plaintiff), wife of the purchaser, Claus Henningsen, was allowed to recover for personal injury against the dealer, Bloomfield Motors (Defendant) and the manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation. 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. Torts Case Briefs by Bram. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960): Promoting Product Safety by Protecting Consumers of Defective Goods* Jay M. Feinman† and Caitlin Edwards‡ Ford Motor Company announced the culmination of the largest series of recalls in its history in October 2009: sixteen million cars, trucks, and minivans contained a faulty switch that Jacquelyn Magaisa October 11, 2020 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. F: Plaintiff filed a case against the dealership and car manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, after his wife sustained some injuries due to malfunctioning of their newer vehicle. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. SC New Jersey, 1960 • Steering mechanism failed and P injured 10 days after delivered. Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date. Summary: On May 9, 1995, Plaintiff’s husband purchased a new car. The Plaintiff, Henningsen (Plaintiff), was injured when the steering gear in her car failed. HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC. Email | Print | Comments (0) View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . This case involves a dispute between Auto-Owners Insurance Company and its insureds, Janna L. Frank and the decedent, Paul K. Wilkie, regarding underinsured-motorist coverage. They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. laws214 lecture notes jurisprudence lecture notes laws214 lecture notes the subject matter of jurisprudence week the subject matter of jurisprudence: conceptual Synopsis of Rule of Law. NOTE. My textbook offers no details of the case, but for whatever reason Hennginsen argued that the manufacturer should be liable for more than just parts. 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. 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. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. o Breach of Express and implied warranties and for negligence. RSS Subscribe: 20 ... State Case Law; California; Florida; New York; Texas; More... Other Databases. 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 . Defendant contends that the warranty was disclaimed in the purchase agreement. In view of the more recent New Jersey cases of Santor v. A & M Karagheusian, Inc., 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965), and Schipper v. 32 N.J. 358 - HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Case Brief - Rule of Law: An express warranty, which limits the manufacturer's liability to replace defective parts is against public policy. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. One of Dworkin's example cases is Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors (1960). Later cases clarified that the breach of implied warranty action recognized in Henningsen was strict liability in tort. 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. ... Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. A married man purchased a Chrysler automobile from a local Chrysler dealership, and gave it to his wife. Helling v. Carey Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. Notably, recovery for losses that are purely economic arise under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and for negligent misstatements, as stated in Hedley Byrne v. Heller. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. I: Are the defendants liable for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability? ... *Reasonable to indicate acceptance act can be performance, but not in this case. From Kan., Reporter Series . Warranty Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. His wife was injured due the car's mechanical failure. A. DOPTION OF . Bloomfield Motors, Inc. — that quickly would change the world of products liability and consumer protection. 174 Kan. 613 - NICHOLS v. NOLD, Supreme Court of Kansas. 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. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Henningsen (Plaintiff), was injured when the steering gear in her car failed. As to particular products, the doctrine of strict liability had its genesis in food and drink. 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. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 8 N.J. 299 - MASSARI v. ACCURATE BUSHING CO., The Supreme Court of New Jersey. See also Steven, 58 Cal.2d at 879-883, 377 P.2d at 295-297; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960). Legal Blogs; Legal Forms; GAO Reports; Product Recalls; Patents; Trademarks; Countries; More... Legal Marketing . Frank and Wilkie argue that they are each owed $75,000. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Rule. Subsequently, Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors abolished privity as a defense to a similar action predicated on breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability. The second doctrinal principle implicated by forum selection clauses is the traditional rule that "contractual provisions, which seek to limit the place or court in which an action may . Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358 [161 A.2d 69, 84-96, 75 A.L.R. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. o Mrs. Henningsen was injured and the car was a total loss. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. LexRoll.com > Law Dictionary > Torts Law > Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358 (1960). Recovery for pure economic loss in English law, arising from negligence, has traditionally been limited. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Nova Southeastern. Prepared by Candice Facts: Claus purchases a 1955 Plymouth Plaza 6 for Helen as a mother’s day gift. Defendant Auto-Owners argues that plaintiffs Frank and Wilkie’s recoveries from Auto-Owners are limited under the terms of the policy to $50,000 each. Prosser: 'The Fall,' supra, at p. 791. Suit. Trial Court. A married man purchased a Chrysler automobile from a local Chrysler dealership, and gave it to his wife. 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). He Brief Fact Summary. The general rule states that, in the absence of fraud, one cannot seek relief from the terms of a contract that he fails to read before signing it. Case. LINEY v. CHESTNUT MOTORS.....109 Questions and Notes ... HENNINGSEN v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC..... 329 Questions and Notes ... cases,3 plaintiffs sue to recover for injury to their reputations. 1. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Brief Fact Summary. On this issue plaintiff cites as the landmark case Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960). They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. The principal case has become famous both for its treatment of the privity requirement and for its handling of the disclaimer clause contained in the contract of sale. The rapidity of recent movement is shown by the history of § 402A of the Restatement of Torts 2d. Helen Henningsen (Plaintiff), wife of the purchaser, Claus Henningsen, was allowed to recover for personal injury against the dealer, Bloomfield Motors (Defendant) and the manufacturer, Chrysler Corporation. T. ORT ... cases,3 plaintiffs sue to recover for injury to their reputations. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. - brief Facts of the case: 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. A disclaimer or limitation of liability shall not be given effect if “unfairly procured,” that is, the consumer was not made understandingly aware of it or it was not clear and explicit. Discussion. Plaintiff sued GM for strict liability; jury verdict for the defendant. 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. The privity issue, which is discussed in a portion of the opinion not reprinted here, merits a word or two of commentary. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The Plaintiff, William Greenman (Plaintiff), was injured when his Shopsmith combination power tool threw a piece of wood, striking him in the head. Facts: -Mr. Henningsen (P) purchased an automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (D), who sold automobiles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D). 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. Facts. Search for: "Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc." Results 1 - 9 of 9. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Tort law must resolve the conflict 2d 1]; General Motors Corp. v. Dodson, 47 Tenn.App. Tort law must resolve the conflict Manufacturers cannot unjustly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability when such disclaimers are clearly not the result of just bargaining. 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. 438 [338 S.W.2d 655, 658-661]; State Farm Mut. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 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. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1960 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 . 10.4.8.2 Notes - Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 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. S. TRICT . Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc and Chrysler Corporation Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Case Brief - Citation32 N.J. 358 (1960). As to particular products, the doctrine of strict liability had its genesis in food and drink. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. -P gave the car to his wife as a Christmas gift. Plaintiff Clause 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. . 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. Helling v. Carey Case Brief-8″?> faultCode 24 June 2012 Karina Torts. Synopsis of Rule of Law. L. IABILITY IN . Mr. Henningsen bought a car; the warrenty said the manufacturer's liability was limited to "making good" defective parts, and abosolutely nothing else. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Since in those cases, however, the court did not consider the question whether a distinction exists between a warranty based on a contract between the parties and one imposed on a manufacturer not in privity with the consumer, the decisions are not authority for rejecting the rule of the La Hue and Chapman cases, supra. JUDGE: FRANCIS, J. No. Rix v. General Motors Corp case brief 1986. Professor Epstein 535 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr. Rule. 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. 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. Facts: Rix was injured when the pickup he was driving was hit from behind by a General Motors cab which was equipped with a water tank after the sale. 5 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Inc. (1960) 161 Atlantic Reporter 2d 69. Held. 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. Ever-Tite Roofing Co. v. Green LA Ct of Appeals 1955. Rix said he was injured by an unreasonably dangerous cab which was placed in the stream of commerce by GM. Economic loss generally refers to financial detriment that can be seen on a balance sheet but not physically. Suppose the New Jersey court and elected to deal with the Henningsen case under the approach suggested by §402A of the Restatement of Torts Second, supra Note 1. What happens to "the limitation of warranty under §402A? Facts: -Mr. Henningsen (P) purchased an automobile from Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (D), who sold automobiles manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (D). Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 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. Mr. Henningsen (plaintiff) sued Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (defendant) to recover consequential losses, joining … Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. 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. Issue. While Mrs. Henningsen was driving the car the steering while was working dysfunctional. '1 For a comprehensive treatment of the U.S. position see Frumerand Friedman, Products Liability (1978). 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. 364*364 Mr. Bernard Chazen argued the cause for plaintiffs (Mr. Carmen … Riggs v Palmer 115 NY 506, 22 NE 188 (1889) Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Cite This Work. 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. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Case Brief - Citation32 N.J. 358 (1960). o Sued Bloomfield motors and the Chrysler Corporation. Defendant asserted that the warranty had been disclaimed by the fine print on the back of the purchase contract. 33 N.J. 247 - HASTINGS BY HASTINGS v. HASTINGS, The Supreme Court of New Jersey. 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. They were shown a Plymouth which appealed to them and the purchase followed. They wanted to buy a car and were considering a Ford or a Chevrolet as well as a Plymouth. o Negligence was dismissed. 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. 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. 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 … See also: Prosser, "The Assault upon the Citadel (Strict Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. After the purchase, the car was driven 468 miles. Intentionally Inflicted Harm: The Prima Facie Case And Defenses, Strict Liability And Negligence: Historic And Analytic Foundations, Multiple Defendants: Joint, Several, And Vicarious Liability, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc, Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc, Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, 1960 N.J. LEXIS 213, 75 A.L.R.2d 1 (N.J. 1960). Auto Ins. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors Contracts Brief Fact Summary. Pate v. …