Products Liability Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960) FACTS Substantive facts: - ∏ purchased a Plymouth automobile that was manufactured by ∆ Chrysler Corporation from ∆ Bloomfield Motors - Because the car was a gift to his wife, only Clause’s name was signed on the sales contract. - It was a two page document that contained provisions of limited warranty. - With less than 500 miles on the odometer, Helen was driving on the highway when the steering went out. The car swerved to the right and hit a brick wall, injuring Helen and rendering the car a total loss. Procedural facts: - Helen brought suit to recover damages for Helen’s injuries. Clause brought suit seeking compensation for his consequential losses. - The complaint was predicated upon breach of express and implied warranties and upon negligence. - At trial, the negligence counts were dismissed by the court and the cause was submitted to the jury for determination solely on the issues of implied warranty of merchantability. - Verdicts were returned against both ∆s and in favor of the ∏s. - ∆s appeal and ∏s cross-appeal from the dismissal of the their negligence claims. - AfÏrmed. ∆’s Argued: disclaimer of implied warranties in the k and lack of privity between the ∆s and Helen. ISSUE ON APPEAL: TREATMENT: Rule(s): If the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the article is required and it appears that he has relied on the seller’s kill or judgment, an implied warranty arises of reasonable fitness for that purpose. Policy for the rule: - ameliorate the harsh doctrine of caveat emptor. - Impose a reciprocal obligation on the seller to beware. - Obligations on the part of the seller were imposed by operation fo law and did not depend for their existence upon express agreement of the parties. - The right to recover damages on account of personal injuries arising from breach of warranty, under such circumstances strict liability is imposed upon the maker or seller of the product. - Many manufacturers took steps to avoid warranty obligations. Chrysler’s Argument on appeal: - Implied warranty of merchantability is an incident of a contract of sale. - The transaction between Chrysler and Bloomfield marked the terminal point of its contractual connection with the car. - Since it was not party to the sale by the dealer to Henningsen, there is no privity of contract between it and the ∏s and the absence of privity eliminates any such implied warranty. Products Liability Application/Rationale: - The warranty before us is a standardized form designed for mass use. - It is imposed upon the automobile consumer. He takes it or leaves it and he must take it to buy the automobile. - No bargaining is engaged in with respect to it. In fact, the dealer through whom it comes to the buyer is without authority to alter it; his function is ministerial – simply to deliver it. - The gross inequality of bargaining position occupied by the consumer in the automobile industry is thus apparent. Conclusion: AfÏrmed. CONCURRENCE/DISSENT: