Macpherson V. Buick Motor Co.

l>Case Brief: Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050

*

brianowens.tv

Students Helping Students Currently Briefing & Updating
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests Terms & Conditions© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission Back To Torts Briefs
Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050
N.Y. Court of Appeals 1916

Chapter

16 Title Products Liability
Page 634 Topic Negligence assaults the citadel of privity
Quick Notes The wheels of a car were made of defective wood. The car suddenly collapsed, the buyer was thrown out and injured. Cardozo Case!!! This case abolished the privity of contract doctrine for negligence cases, a result which now in all jurisdictions.

You are watching: Macpherson v. buick motor co.

Issue

oWhether the Df owned a duty of care and vigilance to any one buy the immediate purchaser? Yes.

Procedure

Trial o
Supreme oAffirmed

Facts

Reason Rules
oPl – Macpherson

oDf – Buick Motor Co

What happened?

oThe wheels of a car were made of defective wood.

oThe car suddenly collapsed, the buyer was thrown out and injured.

oThe wheels were purchased from another manufacturer.

Evidence

oThere is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted.

*
Rule

oThe more probable the danger, the greater need of caution.

Reasoning (Test Argument)

oThe Df was responsible for the finished product.

oThe nature of the automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective.

oThe Df knew the car would be used by person other than the buyer.

Thomas v. Winchester

oA poison falsely labeled is likely to injure any one who gets it.

oBecause the danger is to be foreseen, there is a duty to avoid the injury.

oThe Pl has to be a foreseeable Pl.

Devlin v. Smith

oA contractor built a defective scaffold for a painter.

oDanger is foreseeable.

oThere is a duty of care.

See more: Daryl Worley Sounds Like Life To Me, Darryl Worley Interview

Statler v. Ray

oCoffee urn exploded.

oThere is a potency of danger if negligently made

Thing of Danger (definition)

oIf the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.

Used by persons other than the purchaser (Requirement)

oIf to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by person other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully.

Known danger (Requirement)

oThere must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable.

Proximity of the transaction (Requirement)

The Df has to know of the danger. (Requirement)

Outcome

oAffirmed

oThe Df was not absolved from a duty of inspection because it bought the wheels from a reputable manufacturer.

oThe Df was responsible for the finished product.

oThe more probable the danger, the greater the need for caution!!!

Rules

Rule

oThe more probable the danger, the greater need of caution!!!

The end user has to be a FORSEEABLE PLAINTIFF !!!

Thing of Danger (definition)

oIf the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.

Used by persons other than the purchaser (Requirement)

oIf to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by person other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully.

Known danger (Requirement)

oThere must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable.

Reasoning (Test Argument)

oThe Df was responsible for the finished product.

oThe nature of the automobile gives warning of probable danger if its construction is defective.

oThe Df knew the car would be used by person other than the buyer.

Class Notes

Macpherson (Plaintiff) >> Retail Dealer >> Buick (Defendant) >> Wheel Manufacture

Thing of Danger (definition)

oIf the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger.

See more: Rick And Morty Season 3 Episode 1 Uncensored, My Ratings For Rick And Morty Season 3

Used by persons other than the purchaser (Requirement)

oIf to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by person other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully.

Published

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *