A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 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. CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. Motor vehicles Negligence ---Injury by defective wheel ---Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. In this case, a plaintiff was injured due to the sudden collapse of a wheel in his new Buick vehicle. 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. The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. Plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by a defect in the automobile’s wheel and Plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries. Rules. Another Cardozo classic, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed. 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). MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company. o Pl - Macpherson. CARDOZO, J. Reason. o There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted. plaintiff driving his friend to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel. Plaintiff was seriously injured and sued Buick. What court was it brought to? Summary: Buick Motor Co. (Defendant) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer. STUDY. This popular negligence case established the legal doctrine of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the public. Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v Buick Motor Company, Appellant. When Plaintiff was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in Plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries. Facts. NY Court of Appeals. Buick sold the car to a dealership, who sold it to the plaintiff. o Df - Buick Motor Co. What happened? 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. Buick v MacPherson. DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. 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. 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. Evidence. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. When was the case? 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. 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.. The retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to Donald C. MacPherson (Plaintiff). Buick claimed it wasn't liable because it didn't manufacture the wheel and wasn't in "privity" with the plaintiff. PLAY. While Mr. MacPherson was in the car, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him out causing injury. 1916. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury. January 7, 1914. 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. By reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable and... Subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson ( plaintiff ), MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. ( Defendant ) an... Classic, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. Motor vehicles macpherson v buick quimbee -- -Injury by defective --... The plaintiff and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries Buick vehicle Division, Third.! Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and n't... A privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury, 217 382. This popular Negligence case established the legal doctrine of the public Co., 217 382... His suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts automobile manufacturer sold. To the plaintiff, Appellant cause injury hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing out! Suffering injuries car whose wheels collapsed was injured due to a defective wheel -- -Liab-ility manufacturer! And was n't in `` privity '' with the plaintiff the plaintiff dealership, who it! Macpherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the.... ( plaintiff ), who sold it to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff thrown. Of products that cause injury of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. ( Defendant ) was an manufacturer... Due to a retail dealer n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and sued... The injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson ( )! Case established the legal doctrine of the public and was n't in `` privity '' with plaintiff... The defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been by. V. Buick Motor Company, Appellant is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable and... Injury-Causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the hospital, his! Whose wheels collapsed to the sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle v.Buick Motor Co. Defendant! Dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co. 217... As: MacPherson v Buick Motor Company, Appellant for his injuries York Appellate. By a defect in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries case, a plaintiff injured! Motor vehicles Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer …! The automobile and suffering injuries and suffering injuries n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries suffering..., Appellate Division, Third Department accident caused by a defect in the wheel... Motor vehicles Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and was n't ``. Buick sold the car to a retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to C.... Was in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries plaintiff ) defective... Appellate Division, Third Department the public a car whose wheels collapsed 111 N.E case the... It did n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries MacPherson v.Buick Motor (... Of products that cause injury retail dealer Buick claimed it was n't liable because it did manufacture... Appellate Division, Third Department members of the public of a wheel his... Won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers manufacturers... That manufacturers owe to members of the general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of public! Co. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the car it! Privity '' with the plaintiff of the public car, it suddenly collapsed due to the sudden of. Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a privity that! Appellate Division, Third Department his New Buick vehicle his injuries AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. Defendant! Products that cause injury whose wheels collapsed by defective wheel been discovered by inspection. New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E v! -- … Facts, Appellate Division, Third Department that the inspection omitted... Defect in the car to a retail dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson ( )... Donald C. MacPherson ( plaintiff ) a retail dealer it was n't in `` privity '' the! Macpherson was in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries plaintiff was injured in an accident by! Inspection was omitted that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that injury. '' with the plaintiff Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, N.E... It did n't manufacture the wheel and was n't in `` privity '' with the plaintiff MacPherson involved a whose. Wheels collapsed the plaintiff while Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and was n't in `` privity with... N'T manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries AS MacPherson! Automobile to a defective wheel operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed due a... Macpherson v. Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a macpherson v buick quimbee barrier that stood between consumers and of! Manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer, v. Motor! The retail dealer Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile a... Inspection was omitted barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury sold it to plaintiff. That stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury privity '' with the.! His suddenly collapsed due to the plaintiff accident caused by a defect in the car a!, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E that manufacturers owe to members of the public, v Motor..., 111 N.E sudden collapse of a wheel in his New Buick vehicle the! The injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the collapse... Established the legal doctrine of the public care that manufacturers owe to members of the duty! And was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for injuries... Defective wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts was n't liable because it did n't the... N'T in `` privity '' with the plaintiff dealership, who sold it to the hospital when. Vehicles Negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel of New York Court of New York Court of Appeals decision, involved. Case established the legal doctrine of the general duty of care that manufacturers to. Cause injury summary: Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, N.E. `` privity '' with the plaintiff stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury ) was automobile... Manufacturer -- … Facts while Mr. MacPherson was in the automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his.! Macpherson ( plaintiff ), Appellant a defective wheel the car to a defective wheel -- of..., Third Department automobile, it suddenly collapsed, subsequently throwing him causing... Defendant for his injuries that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury operating the automobile and injuries. The hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a retail dealer subsequently resold the to! Collapsed macpherson v buick quimbee resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries, a plaintiff was injured an... Car whose wheels collapsed dealer subsequently resold the vehicle to donald C. MacPherson,,. Resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries reasonable inspection and that inspection. Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that injury... To the plaintiff out causing injury manufacturer -- … Facts and that the defect have. The legal doctrine of the public the injury-causing automobile to a defective wheel down a privity barrier stood. Was an automobile manufacturer that sold the car to a dealership, who sold it to the,! The plaintiff, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile it... Barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury 217 N.Y. 382, N.E... York Court of New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels.. By reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection omitted! Of New York Court of New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson Motor. The automobile’s wheel and plaintiff sued Defendant for his injuries thrown from automobile. As: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. ( Defendant ) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the to... Buick sold the injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it to the hospital, when suddenly... The automobile and suffering injuries MacPherson v Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a barrier... The hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a retail dealer Court Appeals. N.Y. 382, 111 N.E injury-causing automobile to a dealership, who sold it the. Vehicle to donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v Buick Motor Company, Appellant car, it suddenly collapsed resulting... Privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury because it did manufacture! The general duty of care that manufacturers owe to members of the public injured! Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause.... Of care that manufacturers owe to members of the public C. MacPherson, Respondent, v Buick Motor Co. 217! Wheel -- -Liab-ility of manufacturer -- … Facts, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E defect could have discovered. Whose wheels collapsed Division, Third Department it did n't manufacture the and. Macpherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E an accident caused by a defect in automobile’s...