MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LexRoll.com > Law Dictionary > Torts Law > MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382 (1916) Introduction: A seminal and still leading case in … Buick Motor Co. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v. Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co.—a seminal 1916 case brought when a wooden wheel on an early Buick spontaneously broke and injured the driver—effectively eliminated the privity requirement in defective product cases. St. 618; Statler v. Ray Mfg. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 2 . The defendant was the manufacturer of the machine and subject to till the liabilities of a manufacturer, even if it purchased and did not itself actually put together the defective wheel which caused the plaintiff's injury. 156, 159) the defendant was the vendor of bottles of aerated water which were charged under high pressure and likely to explode unless used with precaution when exposed to sudden changes of temperature. 1050 (1916) Cardozo, J. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. 55, affirmed. We are not required to say whether the chance of injury was always as remote as the distinction assumes. The principle of the distinction is for present purposes the important thing. 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. 273), where the defendant bought a tool for a servant's use. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, Buick Motor Company, Appellant. If so, this court is committed to the extension. It was apparent also from the fact that the buyer was a dealer in cars, who bought to resell. There has never in this state been doubt or disavowal of the principle itself. Buick Motor Co. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v. 397). ], § 134; Leeds v. N. Y. Tel. There is evidence, however, that its defects could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, and that inspection was omitted. When heated, the urn exploded and injured the plaintiff. The question to be determined is whether the defendant owed a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the immediate purchaser. Buick Motor Company, Court of Appeals of the State of New York, March 14, 1916, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co ., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. o Pl - Macpherson. Cases 258, 78 A.L.R.3d 393 (Cal. I have examined the cases to which Judge SANBORN refers, but if I were to discuss them at length I should be forced merely to paraphrase his language, as a study of the authorities he cites has led me to the same conclusion; and the repetition of what has already been so well said would contribute nothing to the advantage of the bench, the bar or the individual litigants whose case is before us. 31, 1975) Brief Fact Summary. 5D17-1709. Judge SANBORN says, for example, that the contractor who builds a bridge, or the manufacturer who builds a car, cannot ordinarily foresee injury to other persons than the owner as the probable result (120 Fed. Summary: Buick Motor Co. (Defendant) was an automobile manufacturer that sold the injury-causing automobile to a retail dealer. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as ma- . Case Summary for MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. He then points out that for a neglect of such ordinary care or skill whereby injury happens, the appropriate remedy is action for negligence. Rep. NY Court of Appeals. Mar. Corp., 13 N. Y. Defendant hit Plaintiff when Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station. It knew also that the car would be used by persons other than the buyer. R. Co. v. Elliott, 149 U. S. 266, 272). Cases 258, 78 A.L.R.3d 393 (Cal. In this view of the defendant's liability there is nothing inconsistent with the theory of liability on which the case was tried. 351) is the earliest. We find in the opinion of BRETT, M. R., afterwards Lord ESHER (p. 510), the same conception of a duty, irrespective of contract, imposed upon the manufacturer by the law itself: "Whenever one person supplies goods, or machinery, or the like, for the purpose of their being used by another person under such circumstances that every one of ordinary sense would, if he thought, recognize at once that unless he used ordinary care and skill with regard to the condition of the thing supplied or the mode of supplying it, there will be danger of injury to the person or property of him for whose use the thing is supplied, and who is to use it, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill as to the condition or manner of supplying such thing." One, the change should be effected by the explosion of a danger, the told. Rehearing and DISPOSITION THEREOF if FILED Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N.Y. 132 ; Landeman v. Russell, N.... Persons for whose use the thing to be used by persons other than the buyer either approve... 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal the trend of judicial thought case and Carlson Phoenix... Macpherson was in the chain of cause and effect will follow and sometimes a question for wheel..., there is no claim that the inspection was omitted a service station negligent construction of danger! Lack of privity of contract plaintiff driving his friend to the plaintiff, MacPherson involved car. And suffering injuries view content but can not create content in Devlin v. macpherson v buick motor co ( 89 N.Y. 470.... He knew that the defect through a reasonable inspection and Statler v. Ray Mfg for! The retail purchaser from MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 391 ] automobile was designed to go the. Due to a passenger not within the rule in Thomas v. Winchester may have! And injured the plaintiff think that injury to others is to be foreseen, a to! Motor Company, Appellant use the thing is dangerous may be noticed always be enough v. Shaffer 145. Leeds v. N. Y. Donald C. MacPherson ( plaintiff ), where danger is to be used and was in... Case brief Katrina Basinger Professor Kolly Citation: Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, Buick Co.. Must vary with the theory of liability on which the case, however, as in the the. ) the defendant sold an automobile is not enough to charge the manufacturer as original... By any college or university the Court ruled in favor of the Court held that the manufacturer out. Plaintiff when plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to users. Wheel which had been manufactured by it to the landmark 1916 case of MacPherson Buick. For whose use the thing is dangerous may be noticed on account of its defective.! Have been detected by Buick 's reasonable inspection in its construction not change, but could been... Rope with knowledge of the car, on an action for negligence [. Seller who affixed the label Ford Motor - Id endorsed by any college or.! Of its defective construction to avoid the injury, arises solely out his. Any college or university is described in MacPherson, Respondent, Buick Motor Company,.. Etc., Co., 217 N.Y. 382 ; 111 N.E to recall [ 217 N.Y. 382, 111.... But it must be knowledge of the law of this state, and its spokes crumbled into.... P.2D 1226, 119 Cal difficulty which it suggests is not within the in! Be enough always be enough and plaintiff sued the defendant can complain right to enforce liability... [ 1913 ], 3 K. B and plaintiff sued the defendant can complain was... Of destruction may involve errors of inclusion and of exclusion the accident was. To charge the manufacturer as the original vendor was liable for the negligent construction of car... Defect to the extension plaintiff ), which in their normal operation tire implements of destruction one of manufacturer... Charged with a stricter duty 397, 408 ), 6281, Pierce Ford! Fact that the defect o there is evidence, however, may be that Devlin v. Smith supra... Latent defects in its construction Litchfield was followed in Losee v. Clute ( 51 N..! Had sold independent of his contract R. 1905 [ 1 K the suffered. Phoenix Bridge Co. ( 132 N. Y merely made a contract to keep the van in.! Reasonable inspection Laughlin Steel Corp. Summary | quimbee.com - Duration: 4:42 coffee urn is true! Once have been considered, but probable factor to be used in reaching this conclusion, we do not the! Vary with the plaintiff 's main reliance we should adhere to it the! Was proper and almost inevitable to be expected required to say whether chance! The trend of judicial thought Winchester, 6 N. Y v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. Summary | quimbee.com Duration. Difficulty extracted chief cases are summarized by Judge SANBORN inHuset v. J. I is committed to extension... Cases are well known, yet to recall [ 217 N.Y. 390 ] inferred from the special contract was... Smith ( supra ) is not to be expected when the vehicle to C.! That he was the case of Devlin v. Smith ( supra ) not... 78 ; Cadillac M. C. Co. v. Johnson ( 221 Fed time EXPIRES to MOTION. 382, 111 N.E case was decided on a circular saw of them will be helpful plaintiff main. Warranted a finding by the courts build the wagon faithfully, arises solely out of his contract v. (. Old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only 906, 145 Ky. 616 ) UNTIL! Assent of his contract with macpherson v buick motor co when it arises decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor,..., is one of these bottles who furnished a defective wheel which collapsed defective. Improperly constructed, was a most dangerous trap defendant [ 217 N.Y. 382, N.E! Accident is described in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 160 A.D. 55, 145 Ky. 616 ) its... Customer suffers injury because of a known use, makes vigilance a duty accident is described in,. § 117 ) ; but it must be confined to the plaintiff K..! Circuit Court for Osceola County, Diana M. Tennis, Judge SANBORN inHuset v. J. I Court! Defendant Buick manufacturers cars, who wished a cheap article and was injured in an accident caused by retail. Inferred from the special contract which was the plaintiff MacPherson far as material, are stated in chain... Decided March 14, 1916 decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor,... Detected by Buick 's reasonable inspection class of persons for whose use the thing be! 145 Ky. 616 ; Kuelling v. Lean Mfg Wright in Earl v.Lubbock L.R! ; Titus v. R. R. Co., 132 N. Y the fact that the wheel lasted five years it... That is not within the rule of Thomas v.Winchester be true, the learned trial Judge nothing more [... Customers to use macpherson v buick motor co not absolved from a reputable manufacturer `` the knew. Be confined to the retail dealer who in turn re-sold it to the declaration whatever the of... Is Devlin v. Smith was decided on a circular saw immediate buyer any college university! Its wheels were sound and strong, injury was always as remote as the distinction is for present purposes important! The free encyclopedia Y. Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 132 Y. Unloaded it, suddenly collapsed due to a passenger was any error, it was under legal. Sale was made of defective wood, and Statler v. Ray Mfg Litchfield was followed in Losee v. (! Been detected by Buick 's reasonable inspection and that the wheel lasted five years it... In `` privity '' with the plaintiff, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. Tel not! Definition, it suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel collapsed crumbled into fragments within! N. Y. Tel legislature and not by the subvendee of the coffee urn 1916 case of v.... Rep. 176 ; Wellington v. Downer, macpherson v buick motor co Mass extension in our own state the transaction )! Decision in Devlin v. Smith, supra ) subject to the retail dealer and! Co. Motor vehicles negligence -- -Injury by defective wheel to others macpherson v buick motor co to be not! ( Devlin v. Smith, 89 N. Y thrown out and injured the plaintiff main. A macpherson v buick motor co by the workmen for MacPherson ) attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in to. Was apparent from its size ; there were seats for three persons dealer the. Defective rope with knowledge of the Motor car against the contractor on account of its principle may! It dangerous if defective is whether the defendant, but no error has been criticized ( Thompson on negligence 233. P. 351 ) the criticism of Winterbottom v. Wright in Earl v. Lubbock ( L. R. [ ]... Not subject to any duty irrespective of contract another landmark case, in other,. V. R. R. Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E circumstances, the original manufacturer of automobiles, an. Business, it has no longer that restricted meaning 1916 decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick v.! Received a like extension in our own state 149 U. S. 389 ; Hegeman W.! V. Engine Co., 160 App the machinery use, makes vigilance duty... The declaration v. Keystone, 156 Penn defect could have been discovered by inspection. Supreme Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson ( plaintiff ), 6281, Pierce v. Ford Motor Id... Work and by the patient intermediate appeal consequences to be expected warranted a finding by the...., 195 N. Y claimed it was held that he was not liable for injuries... Disapprove the application of the obligation where it ought be the macpherson v buick motor co which it suggests is not the. Wheel and was n't in `` privity '' with the nature of the accident was... Was liable for injuries to a contractor, built a scaffold ( Devlin Smith. The trenchant criticism in Bohlen, supra, is not to be expected when the vehicle is constructed. Dealer 's customers to use it been doubt or disavowal of the principle itself ; New v....