In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 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 created a risk of fire even when the vehicle was turned off. The toy in a McDonald’s Happy Meal contains no dangerous lead paint, and the box warns parents that the toy contains small parts and is unsuitable for children under three years of age. Safety recalls, child-safe toys, and other consumer protections are taken for granted today, but there was a time not so long ago when everyday products were dangerous and consumers who were injured by cars, toys, or other products faced a difficult road to recover compensation from manufacturers. About fifty years ago all of this changed, drastically and in a short period of time. The catalyst for this dramatic change was an unlikely source—a woman from Keansburg , New Jersey, who was injured when her new Plymouth sedan suddenly veered into a brick wall. When she initially sued the dealer who had sold her the car and Chrysler, the manufacturer, the state of the law posed roadblocks to her recovery. The New Jersey Supreme Court recognized that change was needed and issued an opinion that quickly would change the world of products liability and consumer protection. The Case On May 7, 1955, Helen Henningsen was “very happy” and “running around like a madwoman.”1 She and her husband, Claus, had gone from their home in Keansburg to nearby Bloomfield Motors, a Chrysler and DeSoto dealership, to buy a car that would be her Mother’s Day present from Claus; it would be the first new car they had owned in seventeen years of marriage. Claus signed a contract for 1 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960) Promoting Product Safety by Protecting Consumers of Defective Goods JAY M. FEINMAN AND CAITLIN EDWARDS 6 JAY M. FEINMAN AND CAITLIN EDWARDS a Plymouth Club Sedan and put down a $1,000 deposit. (In a sign of the times, even though it was to be Helen’s car, the couple always put major purchases in Claus’s name.) The next day the dealer prepared the car for delivery, and they picked up their new car on May 9. Over the next week Helen only used the car a couple of times to go to the store and around town. On May 19, she drove to Asbury Park. While driving home on Route 36 at about twenty miles per hour, she suddenly heard a “terribly loud noise . . . as if something cracked” under the hood; the steering wheel spun out of her hands, and the car veered sharply to the right and crashed into a highway sign and a brick wall.2 The impact threw Helen’s face into the steering wheel, knocking loose her teeth so they all had to be pulled out. The crash also broke five of her ribs and injured her left knee and ankle, requiring emergency treatment, two subsequent hospitalizations, and surgery to her left kneecap. Breck Jones, the insurance appraiser who inspected the damaged vehicle, could not pin down the exact cause of the accident but concluded there must have been a mechanical defect, something “wrong from the steering wheel down to the front wheels.”3 The Henningsens sued Bloomfield Motors and Chrysler Corporation, Helen for her injuries and Claus for damage to the car, the medical expenses he paid, and the loss of Helen’s “society and services.” Their legal theories were that Bloomfield and Chrysler were negligent in manufacturing or preparing the car and that they had made express or implied warranties—promises about the quality of the car. However, because of the state of the law in the late 1950s, in New Jersey and across the United States, the Henningsens faced some formidable obstacles. First, they could not point to how Bloomfield or Chrysler had been negligent , or even what the defect in the car was. The Henningsens’ lawyer argued that the Plymouth was new, the road where the accident occurred was smooth, Helen was not at fault, and Jones had acknowledged that something had gone wrong with the car. From this, the jury could infer that the accident must have been caused by a defect in the car’s steering. But Chrysler and Bloomfield each pointed out that there was no proof that they had been negligent. Chrysler argued that the Henningsens had not demonstrated that Chrysler failed to use...

Share