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, rather than directly from the defendant.
Judgmentedit
In the earlier precedent, duty had been imposed on defendants by voluntary contract via privity as in an English case, Winterbottom v. Wright.[4] which 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]
Dissentedit
Willard Bartlett wrote a dissenting opinion objecting to Cardozo's new rule and conclusion.
It has heretofore been held in this state that the liability of the vendor of a manufactured article for negligence arising out of the existence of defects therein does not extend to strangers injured in consequence of such defects but is confined to the immediate vendee. The exceptions to this general rule which have thus far been recognized in New York are cases in which the article sold was of such a character that danger to life or limb was involved in the ordinary use thereof; in other words, where the article sold was inherently dangerous. As has already been pointed out, the learned trial judge instructed the jury that an automobile is not an inherently dangerous vehicle.[6]
^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),
^Arthur Best, David W. Barnes. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems. p. 657.
macpherson, buick, motor, 1050, 1916, famous, york, court, appeals, opinion, judge, benjamin, cardozo, that, removed, requirement, privity, contract, duty, negligence, actions, courtnew, york, court, appealsfull, case, namedonald, macpherson, buick, motor, com. 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 that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions 1 2 MacPherson v Buick Motor Co CourtNew York Court of AppealsFull case nameDonald C MacPherson v Buick Motor CompanyArguedJanuary 24 1916DecidedMarch 14 1916Citation s 111 N E 1050 217 N Y 382Case historyPrior historyJudgment for plaintiff Sup Ct aff d 160 A D 55 3d Dep t 1914 HoldingAn automobile manufacturer s liability for a defective product extended beyond the immediate purchaser Appellate Division affirmed Court membershipChief judgeWillard BartlettAssociate judgesFrank H Hiscock Emory A Chase William H Cuddeback John W Hogan Benjamin N Cardozo Cuthbert W PoundCase opinionsMajorityCardozo joined by Hiscock Chase CuddebackConcurrence without separate opinion HoganDissentBartlettPound took no part in the consideration or decision of the case Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 Dissent 4 See also 5 Notes 6 External linksFacts editThe 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 rather than directly from the defendant Judgment editIn the earlier precedent duty had been imposed on defendants by voluntary contract via privity as in an English case Winterbottom v Wright 4 which 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 Dissent editWillard Bartlett wrote a dissenting opinion objecting to Cardozo s new rule and conclusion It has heretofore been held in this state that the liability of the vendor of a manufactured article for negligence arising out of the existence of defects therein does not extend to strangers injured in consequence of such defects but is confined to the immediate vendee The exceptions to this general rule which have thus far been recognized in New York are cases in which the article sold was of such a character that danger to life or limb was involved in the ordinary use thereof in other words where the article sold was inherently dangerous As has already been pointed out the learned trial judge instructed the jury that an automobile is not an inherently dangerous vehicle 6 See also editDonoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 where Lord Atkin cited the decision with approval in the House of Lords 7 Notes edit 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 Cited with approval by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 UKHL 100 1 Business Week article regarding the case 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 Arthur Best David W Barnes Basic tort law cases statutes and problems p 657 https casetext com case macpherson v buick motor co 2 1932 AC 562 at 598 External links edit nbsp Wikisource has original text related to this article MacPherson v Buick Motor Co nbsp This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title MacPherson v Buick Motor Co amp oldid 1186690629, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
