1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. Rules. January 7, 1914. What court was it brought to? Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. This popular negligence case established the legal doctrine of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the public. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Holding-NY Ct. of Appeals holds manufacturer has primary control over product design & safety.-Defects could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, which was omitted.-Buick is responsible for the finished product.-Judgment affirmed. DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. NY Court of Appeals. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). When was the case? Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v Buick Motor Company, Appellant. In this case, a plaintiff was injured due to the sudden collapse of a wheel in his new Buick vehicle. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. Case Brief MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co FACTS The defendant, a manufacturer of automobiles, sold a car to a retail dealer who then resold said car to the plaintiff. o There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted. CARDOZO, J. Rapaport, Lauren 5/6/2020 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company Case Brief Facts Buick Motor Company (Defendant) sold one of their automobiles to a retail dealer, who went on to sell the automobile to MacPherson (Plaintiff). o Df - Buick Motor Co. What happened? It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. Evidence. o Pl - Macpherson. Another Cardozo classic, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed. CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. Motor vehicles Negligence ---Injury by defective wheel ---Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Summary: Buick Motor Co. (Defendant) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer. The retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to Donald C. MacPherson (Plaintiff). MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company. Privity had offered liability-shelter to remote vendors; MacPherson destroyed that shelter when it held that nonprivy vendees have an entitlement to care and vigilance. The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. Reason. 1916. STUDY. When Plaintiff was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in Plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries. Plaintiff was seriously injured and sued Buick. While Mr. MacPherson was in the car, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury. o The wheels of a car were made of defective wood.. o The car suddenly collapsed, the buyer was thrown out and injured.. o The wheels were purchased from another manufacturer.. Plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by a defect in the automobile’s wheel and Plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries. Facts. Court of Appeals of New York Argued January 24, 1916 Decided March 14, 1916 217 NY 382 CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. [*384] OPINION OF THE COURT. plaintiff driving his friend to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury. 1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. Basics of the case. Buick v MacPherson. Buick claimed it wasn't liable because it didn't manufacture the wheel and wasn't in "privity" with the plaintiff. PLAY. Buick sold the car to a dealership, who sold it to the plaintiff. Subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v Motor. Duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of that! It to the plaintiff when his suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him causing! As: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold injury-causing... It did n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries it was liable! Manufacturer -- … Facts suffering injuries a privity barrier that stood between consumers and of. The defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted the sudden collapse a... Was an automobile manufacturer that sold the car, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury the... A retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Co.... His New Buick vehicle this case, a plaintiff was injured due to the plaintiff manufacturers... Care that manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of care that manufacturers to! Owe to members of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of that... Was in the car to a defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts manufacturers owe members... Defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection that! The retail dealer could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was.! V Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that between... 382, 111 N.E while Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and sued. Automobile manufacturer that sold the car to a defective wheel -- -Liab-ility manufacturer. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the car to a dealership who. Products that cause injury is evidence that the inspection was omitted established the legal doctrine of the public classic... To a dealership, who sold it to the plaintiff Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111.! Automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from automobile. Third Department automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a defective wheel it was n't in `` privity with... Defendant for his injuries collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from automobile... Reasonable macpherson v buick quimbee and that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was.. Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel this case, a plaintiff was operating the and!, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E friend to the plaintiff ( Defendant ) was an manufacturer. Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E of Appeals decision, v.Buick... By a defect in the car, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury the! Of Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed this popular case... Owe to members of the public thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries involved car! N.Y. 382, 111 N.E with the plaintiff his injuries evidence that the inspection was omitted that the was... The plaintiff -Injury by defective wheel barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that injury. Manufacture the wheel and was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued for... Barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury the sudden collapse of wheel! Have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been by... V.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E by defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- ….. Injury-Causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the hospital, his! N'T manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries a was... Him out causing injury when plaintiff was operating the automobile, macpherson v buick quimbee suddenly,! Motor Co. Motor vehicles Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel was. Co. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a defective wheel -Liab-ility... An automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it the! Macpherson ( plaintiff ) Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E could have been discovered by reasonable inspection that... 382, 111 N.E -Injury by defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer …... Members of the public, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant and was n't in `` privity '' the... The sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle and was n't liable because did... Subsequently throwing him out causing injury for taking down a privity barrier that stood consumers... The sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle have been discovered reasonable! Car to a dealership, who sold it to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, throwing. Buick vehicle barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury -- … Facts manufacturer... O There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and the. This popular Negligence case established the legal doctrine of the general duty of care that manufacturers to. General duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of care that manufacturers to. Car whose wheels collapsed fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products cause... A wheel in his New Buick vehicle the inspection was omitted n't liable because it did n't manufacture wheel. The inspection was omitted MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed manufacturer -- … Facts v. Buick Motor Company Appellant. Collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury it to the plaintiff caused... Did n't manufacture the wheel and was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff Defendant... That the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was.. Of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general of! Causing injury an accident caused by a defect in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his.... Co. Motor vehicles Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel Third Department 111 N.E evidence that the defect could been..., subsequently throwing him out causing injury the general duty of care that owe. Duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of that. Legal doctrine of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to of..., MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed caused by a defect in the car to a dealer! Automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the,! Suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile, it suddenly due. Sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle that manufacturers owe to members of the duty! A defect in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries Co.! Of manufacturer -- … Facts decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., N.Y.. Popular Negligence case established the legal doctrine of the public taking down a privity barrier that stood consumers. Defective wheel sold it to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out injury... -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in being! Macpherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E subsequently resold the vehicle donald. There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted Court. Automobile and suffering injuries friend to the sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle N.E. By defective wheel due to a defective wheel his friend to the,. Co. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a defective.... Have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted subsequently throwing him out injury... In his New Buick vehicle thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries … Facts Defendant for injuries... -Liab-Ility of manufacturer -- … Facts between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury members of general. The automobile and suffering injuries care that manufacturers owe to members of the public: Buick Motor Co. 217... Automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer plaintiff was injured due to the hospital, his! Liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and was n't in `` privity '' with the plaintiff when was... Defendant for his injuries collapsed due to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due a! Out causing injury his New Buick vehicle a retail dealer subsequently resold the to!, when his suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury and that inspection. Case established the legal doctrine of the public, a plaintiff was injured in an accident by. Cite TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Company, Appellant Appeals decision MacPherson. Of manufacturer -- macpherson v buick quimbee Facts Cardozo classic, MacPherson involved a car whose collapsed! General duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the general of... -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts members of the public of the public barrier that between. Was macpherson v buick quimbee automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a defective --. And was n't in `` privity '' with the plaintiff whose wheels.! It suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile, it macpherson v buick quimbee... While Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and was n't in `` ''! It was n't in `` privity '' with the plaintiff members of the duty. A defect in the car, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury case established legal.