MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. – (Privity)
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)
BY: James F. Polk – AISOL YEAR ONE STUDENT
Facts & History:
- Buick Model 10 was a best selling car in 1908.
- 22 Horsepower and 55MPH capacity.
- $900 was the price.
- Donald MacPherson purchased a Buick Model 10.
- MacPherson purchased from a Dealer who purchased directly from Buick.
- MacPherson was driving at 8MPH when the Left Real Wheel collapsed.
- Car went out of control and MacPherson was injured.
- Wheel collapsed because it was constructed out of defective wood.
- Buick purchased the wheel from the Empyreal Wheel Company.
- Inspection should have shown the wheel was defective.
- Buick did not inspect the wheel before installing it on the Model 10, and selling it to the Dealer.
- MacPherson sued for negligence in a New York State Court.
- First Trial ended in a Dismissal.
- NY Appellate Division Reversed.
- Second Trial MacPherson was awarded $5000 and the Appellate Division Affirmed.
- Buick Appealed to the highest NY Appeals Court, the Court of Appeals of New York.
Issue: Does a Manufacturer owe a duty of care to anybody other than the direct entity to whom they sell a product?
Rule: Yes! The Manufacturer of a Product owes a duty of care to users other than the initial purchaser. The Manufacturer owes a duty of care to foreseeable users to guard against the foreseeable dangers of negligent manufacture.
Application: Manufacturer has Duty of Care beyond that created by the sale to the Original Purchaser (Relationship based Privity) if they know of a likely danger if the product is negligently manufactured and then used by a known user.
Conclusion:
- Justice Cardozo gave the Majority Opinion:
-
- The Manufacturer owes a duty of care to users beyond the original purchaser if the manufacturer knows that the product is:
- Reasonably likely to create a danger if it is negligently manufactured.
- Will be used in the normal course of events by people other than the original purchaser and without additional testing.
- Historically the Manufacturer’s Duty of Care extended to the original purchaser but not to later users. A Duty required a relationship and the only extant relationship was that between the Manufacturer and the Original Purchaser. This was called the Rule of Privity.
- The Rule of Privity was replaced with the better rule of:
- Known Danger + Known Use = Duty of Care.
- The Buick Model 10 was designed to go 50MPH and safe operation depended on sound wheels and therefore there was a known danger.
- Buick did not manufacture the wheels but they used them on the car.
- Buick knew the car would be used by people beyond the Dealer since the Dealer was in business to sell the car to end users and also it had 3 seats which meant it was designed to carry more people than just the one to whom it was sold.
- Known Danger + Known Use = Duty of Care.
- The Manufacturer owes a duty of care to users beyond the original purchaser if the manufacturer knows that the product is:
-
- Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the Judgment of the Lower Court and upheld MacPherson’s Victory at Trial.
- Chief Justice Bartlett Dissented arguing that a Manufacturer should have a duty to subsequent manufacturers only in cases involving an INHERENTLY DANGEROUS PRODUCT like poisons or explosives and believed a car was not inherently dangerous.