MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo which removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.[1][2]

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Full case nameDonald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
ArguedJanuary 24 1916
DecidedMarch 14 1916
Citation(s)111 N.E. 1050, 217 N.Y. 382
Case history
Prior action(s)Judgment for plaintiff, Sup. Ct.; aff'd, 160 A.D. 55 (3d Dep't 1914)
Holding
An automobile manufacturer's liability for a defective product extended beyond the immediate purchaser. Appellate Division affirmed.
Court membership
Chief judgeWillard Bartlett
Associate judgesFrank H. Hiscock, Emory A. Chase, William H. Cuddeback, John W. Hogan, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Cuthbert W. Pound
Case opinions
MajorityCardozo, joined by Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback
Concurrence(without separate opinion) Hogan
DissentBartlett
Pound took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Facts

The plaintiff, Donald C. MacPherson, a stonecutter, was injured when one of the wooden wheels of his 1909 "Buick Runabout" collapsed.[3] The defendant, Buick Motor Company, had manufactured the vehicle, but not the wheel, which had been manufactured by another party but installed by defendant. It was conceded that the defective wheel could have been discovered upon inspection. The defendant denied liability because the plaintiff had purchased the automobile from a dealer, not directly from the defendant.

Judgment

In the earlier precedent, duty was imposed on defendants by voluntary contract via privity as in the English case of Winterbottom v. Wright.[4] This is the precursor rule for product liability. The portion of the MacPherson opinion in which Cardozo demolished the privity bar to recovery is as follows:

If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequence to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. That is as far as we need to go for the decision of this case. ... If he is negligent, where danger is to be foreseen, a liability will follow.[5]


gollark: ++C.
gollark: ```javapackage com.seriouscompany.business.java.helloworld.packagenamingpackage.impl;import org.springframework.context.ApplicationContext;import org.springframework.context.ConfigurableApplicationContext;import org.springframework.context.support.ClassPathXmlApplicationContext;import com.seriouscompany.business.java.helloworld.packagenamingpackage.impl.parameters.DefaultHelloWorldUpperLimitParameter;import com.seriouscompany.business.java.helloworld.packagenamingpackage.interfaces.HelloWorld;import com.seriouscompany.business.java.helloworld.packagenamingpackage.interfaces.parameters.HelloWorldUpperLimitParameter;public final class Main { public static void main(final String[] args) { final ApplicationContext context = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext(Constants.SPRING_XML); final HelloWorld myHelloWorld = (HelloWorld) context.getBean(Constants.STANDARD_FIZZ_BUZZ); final HelloWorldUpperLimitParameter helloWorldUpperLimit = new DefaultHelloWorldUpperLimitParameter(); myHelloWorld.helloWorld(helloWorldUpperLimit.obtainUpperLimitValue()); ((ConfigurableApplicationContext) context).close(); }}```
gollark: F#!
gollark: F#!
gollark: ```fsharpprintfn "Hello, World!"```

See also

Notes
  1. Anita Bernstein The Reciprocal of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company in De Gruyter Journal of Tort Law Vol. 9 issue 1–2 August 2016 https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2016-0007 Retrieved 17 August 2017
  2. Cited with approval by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
  3. Business Week article regarding the case
  4. Winterbottom v. Wright, 152 Eng. Rep. 402, 403 (Ex. 1842) (denying injured man's suit against manufacturer because the judge found no privity between the defendant carriage maker and the injured plaintiff).
  5. Arthur Best, David W. Barnes. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems. p. 657.
  6. [1932] AC 562 at 598.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.