MacPherson v Buick Motor Co is a 1916 decision of the New York Court of Appeals, written by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that founded modern American product liability law. MacPherson bought a Buick automobile from a dealer, not from the manufacturer directly, and was injured when a defective wooden wheel collapsed. Buick argued it owed no duty of care because there was no direct contractual relationship, or privity, between it and MacPherson. Cardozo held that a manufacturer of a product reasonably certain to be dangerous if negligently made owes a duty of care to the ultimate user of the product, not merely to the immediate purchaser, effectively abolishing the privity requirement for negligence claims against manufacturers and shaping the law of negligence and product liability across the United States.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingRemoved the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions, so a manufacturer could be held liable to an injured end user with whom it had no direct contractual relationship. 2 Case Status
Case Status (category) Connections
Authored By
Decided By
In Area Of Law
MacPherson dropped privity of contract as a bar to negligence claims over dangerous products.
MacPherson extended a manufacturer duty of care to the ultimate purchaser of a dangerous product.
In Legal System
Sources
1. Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. (Encyclopedia.com)
Entry text on lasting effectQuote, Entry text on lasting effect
became the majority rule in the United States and one of the fundamental principles of the law of product liability
View the Source 2. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (Wikipedia)
WikipediaLead section, only sentence
that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.
Infobox, DecideDate field
March 14
In Group: Negligence and Strict Liability Tort Cases, Introduction, sentence 1
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo that removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions.
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.