MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
Citation: 217 N.Y. 382 (1916)
Facts
MacPherson was injured when the wooden wheel of his Buick automobile collapsed. He had purchased the car from a dealer, not directly from Buick. Buick had bought the defective wheel from a parts manufacturer. MacPherson sued Buick in negligence.
Issue
Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care in negligence to a user who purchased the product from an intermediary, not directly from the manufacturer?
Holding
Yes. When a manufacturer places into commerce a product that is inherently dangerous if negligently made, and it is foreseeable that the product will be used by persons other than the immediate purchaser, the manufacturer owes a duty of care to those users.
Rule
Manufacturer’s duty of care — abolishing the privity requirement: A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate user of its product if: (1) the product is dangerous if negligently made, and (2) it is foreseeable that the product will reach persons other than the direct purchaser. The lack of contractual privity between manufacturer and injured user does not bar a negligence claim.
Significance
- Judge Cardozo’s opinion abolished the privity requirement for negligence in products liability
- Overruled Winterbottom v. Wright (English case requiring privity for negligence)
- Paved the way for modern products liability law
- Eventually products liability evolved beyond negligence to strict liability (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A)