MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

E100413

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. canonical 1

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf New York Court of Appeals decision
court case
landmark case
product liability case
tort law case
citation 111 N.E. 1050
217 N.Y. 382
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court New York Court of Appeals
decisionDate 1916
defendant Buick
surface form: Buick Motor Company
factPattern Buick had purchased the wheel from an independent supplier and sold the completed car to a dealer, who then sold it to MacPherson.
Plaintiff was injured when a wheel of a Buick automobile collapsed while he was driving.
The defective wheel could have been discovered by reasonable inspection by the manufacturer.
holding A manufacturer of a product that is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made owes a duty of care to persons beyond the immediate purchaser.
Privity of contract is not required for a consumer to sue a manufacturer in negligence for personal injuries caused by a defective product.
impact eroded the privity barrier in American tort law
expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to ultimate consumers
influenced subsequent adoption of strict products liability doctrines
laid groundwork for modern product liability law in the United States
involvedParty Buick
surface form: Buick Motor Company

Donald C. MacPherson
issue Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care in negligence to a consumer not in privity of contract with the manufacturer.
judge Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
surface form: Benjamin N. Cardozo

Cuthbert W. Pound
Emory A. Chase
Frederick Collin
Willard Bartlett
William H. Cuddeback NERFINISHED
jurisdiction New York
legalArea consumer protection
negligence
product liability
legalPrinciple abolition of privity requirement in negligence actions against manufacturers for dangerous products
duty of care extends to any person foreseeably endangered by the negligent manufacture of a product
foreseeability as a basis for duty in negligence
opinionBy Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo
surface form: Benjamin N. Cardozo
plaintiff Donald C. MacPherson
precedentFor duty of manufacturers to remote users of products
relatedConcept dangerous products
duty of care
foreseeable plaintiff
privity of contract
result judgment for the plaintiff
stateLaw New York law
status good law in New York as a foundational negligence precedent
timePeriod 20th century

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo notableWork MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
subject surface form: Benjamin N. Cardozo