MacPherson v Buick Motor Co.
Ct of App. N. Y. 1916
Author:- Sam Biers

Limitation on Duty -Privity of Contract

Relevant Facts: Df is a manufacturer of automobiles who sold vehicles to a dealer.  The dealer resold to the pl.  While the pl was in the car it collapsed.  He was thrown out and injured.  One of the wheels was made of defective wood and the spokes collapsed.  Df did not make the wheel, it was bought from another manufacturer.  The defects could have been detected with reasonable inspection by the manufacturer but that was omitted.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the df owed a duty of care and vigilance to anyone other than the immediate purchaser, the dealer?

Court’s Holding: No.

Procedure: App Div - affirming S. Ct. jury for pl.  Df appealed.  Affirmed.

Law or Rule(s): Manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate purchasers when the product is inherently dangerous, or capable of loss of life or limb.

Court Rationale:   There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, probable, to make a manufacturer liable outside of his contract with the immediate purchaser.   The proximity or remoteness of the relation is a factor to be considered with the determination of danger.  If a manufacture puts a finished product on the market without inspection, where danger is foreseen, he is liable. Foresight of consequences involves the creation of a duty.  The jury determined the df did not breach a duty of vigilance. The df had a duty to inspect the car

Plaintiff’s Argument: Df owed a duty to subsequent purchasers of a finished product that was not inspected.

Defendant’s Argument: The df owed a duty only to the immediate purchaser that the car was free of defects.