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