Running Head: CASE BRIEF 1

Case Brief (Hennessey V. Stop and Shop)

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Date
CASE BRIEF 2

Case Brief (Hennessey V. Stop and Shop)

Caption

The case is called Mersine HENNESSEY & another one, v. The STOP &

SUPERMARKET, was then argued on June 3, 2005, and decide on November 09 of 2005. the

case had been presented to an Appeals Court of Massachusetts and found in the casebook at case

number 04-P-1005.

Rule of Law

This case analytically could said to be daring to establish if there is anyone response for

customer safety and in what circumstances. There is one very common statutory guideline

applied by numerous local governmental courts in their judgmental decisions called the

misnomer rule. Which in a number of instances applied when a plaintiff files a case proceeds to

notify the right defendant of the suit but uses a wrong name while referring to the defendant.

This is the one rule that made the ultimate difference in the entire case.

Facts

This case has Mersine Hennessey and one other person presented as the plaintiff of the

case who files the case against the Stop and Shop Supermarket that then becomes the case's main

defendants (Black, & Spain, 2018). The plaintiff claims they slip and fall on a banana piece in

the production department of the supermarket. It is also true that there was some negligence as

the customer sustained injuries.

Procedural History

In this case, the plaintiff presented a civil case of neglect resulting in physical harm to a

customer. Where it was presented and then appealed, all the parties involved are served for the

processions.
CASE BRIEF 3

Issues:

Several questions come up, especially when looking at this case, comprehensively. For

instance, did the plaintiff doo slip and fall as she alleged, and was it really in the stop and shop

supermarket? What was she doing in that place at that time? What makes it an absolute fault of

the defendant to take responsibility for such an unfortunate situation? Moreover, are there any

statutory provisions to safeguard customers' interest in such a situation, and how about the

service provider? Then does what the judge give as a rule the right decision?

Holdings

government public guidance statutory provides that only two points differentiate

misnomer cases in the federal courts; in such a case, a new summon, for instance, does not

necessarily imply that the corrections are being implemented. In a case where there are

amendments to include a new party that previously had not been served with summoning, or

there are unforced attendants by the new party.

Rationale

During the ruling, the superior court judge summarized that the plaintiff’s service on stop

& shop was very poor regarding supermarkets and allowed the motion. However, the plaintiff

did provide enough evidence to show that the supermarket failed in providing the responsibilities

that they hold.

Disposition

Having found no sufficient evidence to convict the stop and shop supermarket for

negligence, the court ruled in favor of the supermarket.

CASE BRIEF 4

Concurring and Dissenting opinion

The judge did dismiss Hennessey's application, but this does not entirely imply that their

case was not that strong. They only did lack sufficient evidence to support their allegations.

Notes or Other Considerations on the Same

Having summarized all the major parts of the case it’s very imperative to look at the

wider scope, was any employee of the supermarket in the vicinity during the occurrence of the

accident? It’s a very vague question but do serve a lot when it comes to ascertaining if this was

really a negligence issue.

During the presentation none of the defendants managed to present sufficient evidence to convict

stop and shop corporation as having the responsibility for customer safety.

in suit of “US v A.H .Fischer Lumber Co., 162 F.2d at 873 “we are informed that “a suit at law is

not a children’s game instead its considered as a very serious adult engagement to seek justice

and the main duty of that is to arraign individuals in the court of law” and in this case none of the

parties demonstrated such seriousness.

CASE BRIEF 5

References

Black, L., & Spain, T. (2018). How Self-Service Happened: The Vision and Reality of Changing

Market Practices in Britain. In Imagining Britain’s Economic Future, c. 1800–1975(pp.

159-180). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.