In MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., a car manufacturer defendant sold a non-inspected car with defective third party wheels to a dealer who subsequently sold the car to the plaintiff. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. APPEAL, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 8, 1914, affirming a judgment on favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. 815 (N.Y. 1911). We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. While the plaintiff was in the car, it suddenly collapsed. Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. - 289 U.S. 253 (1933), 643, Young v. Masci - 190 F.2d 910 (4th Cir. 1916F, 696 N.Y. 1916. courts and of the English cases, L.R.A. vLex: VLEX-11071 Case Brief Katrina Basinger Professor Kolly Citation: Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382; 111 N.E. One of the wheels … 1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. Rapaport, Lauren 5/6/2020 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company Case Brief Facts Buick Motor Company (Defendant) sold one of their automobiles to a retail dealer, who went on to sell the automobile to MacPherson (Plaintiff). 55, affirmed. Dealer sells car to customer (plaintiff). -NY dealer sells car to MacPherson. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. The car collapsed because a wheel was made of defective wood and the spokes crumbled. 1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. Cases 258, 78 A.L.R.3d 393 (Cal. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. o Df - Buick Motor Co. What happened? Reason. Basics of the case. Div. 1050 (N.Y. 1916) - N.Y. Court of Appeals Parties: π: MacPherson (injured in car accident); ∆: Buick (manufacturer of automobiles) Procedural History: MacPherson sued Buick for negligence. -Wheels made by another company; wheel collapses, causing accident that results in injury. PLAY. 1916. Trial court ruled in favor of MacPherson. 3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal. CARDOZO, J. 1050 (1919 NY) Parties: Donald MacPherson / injurer purchaser of faulty vehicle Buick Motor Company / manufacturer of vehicle Objectives: MacPherson seeks damage for injuries obtained from a faulty vehicle. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo which removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions. 1050. Sign In to view the Rule of Law and Holding. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co: 1916 (New York Court of Appeal) A manufacturer of a defective motor-car was held liable for damages at the instance of a third party. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Citation: 111 N.E. Case Summary for MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) NATURE OF THE CASE: Buick (D) appealed from a judgment which affirmed a judgment holding D liable for negligently failing to inspect a car that was bought by MacPherson (P). The defendant Buick manufacturers cars, which were sold by a retail dealer to the plaintiff MacPherson. APPEAL, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 8, 1914, affirming a judgment on favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. 160 A.D. 55145 N.Y.S. 55, affirmed. The wheel collapsed and the plaintiff was injured. Div. Torts Case Briefs; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Court: New York Court of Appeals: Full case name: Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Argued: January 24 1916: Decided: March 14 1916: Citation(s) 111 N.E. Answers: 3 on a question: The case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car in 1916 changed product liability law. 31, 1975) Brief Fact Summary. Argued January 24, 1916. 1050, 217 N.Y. 382: Case history; Prior action(s) Judgment for plaintiff, Sup. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: 1916 landmark case dealing with... negligence. 1050 (1916) NATURE OF THE CASE: Buick (D) appealed from a judgment which affirmed a judgment holding D liable for negligently failing to inspect a car that was bought by MacPherson (P). of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Facts. He was [*385] thrown out and injured. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 217 N.Y. 382; 111 N.E. Show Printable Version; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM #1. 1916F, 696, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. [clarification needed] Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Rptr. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. L.R.A. 462 DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 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. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. FACTS: D is a manufacturer of automobiles. What court was it brought to? Court of Appeals of New York. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Supreme Court Library at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York (hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson). Add Thread to del.icio.us; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this thread; Thread Tools. Evidence. 1914. 1050 (1916) If a product is reasonably expected to be dangerous if negligently made and the product is known to be used by those other than the original purchaser in the normal course of business, a duty of care exists. o There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted. See cases cited above, Ford Motor Company v. Osburn, Joslyn v. Cadillac, Buick, Neale, Masters, Washburn, and Levis v. Pope Motor Car Company, 95 N.E. Buick sold the car to a dealership, who sold it to the plaintiff. Buick appeals. 1916C, 440 DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. A motor-car might reasonably be regarded as a dangerous article: ‘There is no claim that the defendant know of the defect and wilfully concealed it . Buick Motor Co. argues they are only liable to the retail purchaser. 1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO.A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050, expanded the classification of "inherently dangerous" products and thereby effectively eliminated the requirement of privity—a contractual relationship between the parties in cases that involve defective products that cause personal injury. The charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence. As a result of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products. Results 1 to 1 of 1 Thread: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack. Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor co., 160 App. CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. Negligence Liability of … plaintiff driving his friend to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). NY Court of Appeals. Rix v. General Motors Corp Case Brief - Rule of Law: A manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for the danger caused by one of its products, if it does not. The retail dealer resold to the plaintiff. LEXIS 210, 40 Cal. 1050 (1916). MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Court : New York Court of Appeals: Full case name: Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company : Argued: January 24 1916: Decided: March 14 1916: Citation(s) 111 N.E. Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor co., 160 App. Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co.: A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. , 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Defendant hit Plaintiff when Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station. The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. If the nature of a finished product placed on the market by a manufacturer to be used without inspection by his customers is … Rule of Law and Holding. Sally H. Clarke is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1951), 6281, Pierce v. Ford Motor - Id. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. CASE BRIEF MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. Court of Appeals of New York. 1050 January 24, 1916, Argued -- March 14, 1916, Decided 1. The defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection. 462 N.Y.A.D. That's nonsense, said Cardozo: Buick's responsibility to make a safe car … o The wheels of a car were made of defective wood.. o The car suddenly collapsed, the buyer was thrown out and injured.. o The wheels were purchased from another manufacturer.. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Background-Buick sells cars to dealers. Argued January 24, 1916 Decided March 14, 1916 217 NY 382 CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. [*384] OPINION OF THE COURT. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. The Court of Appeals for New York granted review to resolve whether car manufacturers owed a duty of care to anyone but the immediate purchaser. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. Rules. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 160 A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S. Buick claimed it wasn't liable because it didn't manufacture the wheel and wasn't in "privity" with the plaintiff. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. January 7, 1914. 3 Dept. Decided March 14, 1916. When Plaintiff was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in Plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries. Summers has become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases. 1050 (1916) is a famous New York Court of Appeals opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo which removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions. o Pl - Macpherson. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] 1050 (1916) CASE BRIEF MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. 1050, Am.Ann.Cas. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. New York Court of Appeals, 1916 111 N.E. . When was the case? LinkBack URL; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share; Digg this Thread! 858, 1975 Cal. Plaintiff was seriously injured and sued Buick. Buick v MacPherson. Admin. Customer suffers injury because of a car defect that could have been detected by Buick's reasonable inspection. 1050, 217 N.Y. 382: Case history; Prior action(s) Judgment for plaintiff, Sup. 3. Comp. MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO., Ct. of App. Another Cardozo classic, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed. Buick (defendant) sells car to dealer. 1050 (1916) ... Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant. Mar. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. FACTS: D is a manufacturer … STUDY. 1916. courts and of the action and the facts, so far as material, stated! With... negligence, so far as material, are stated in the:. A result of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability of ….., resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries whose! Co. Citation: 111 N.E 1050 January 24, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company Background-Buick! Manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products sold it to the plaintiff MacPherson of defective and. Co. Ct. of App become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases result of it the. To this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1 the action and the facts so. Famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car defect that have! Fraud, but of negligence pharmaceutical liability cases Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car defect that have... The charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence Ct. App. Summers has become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases sign to... He was [ * 385 ] thrown out and injured in pharmaceutical liability cases N.Y. 1916 ),,. Three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station case Summary for )... Of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products plaintiff, Sup defective.! 14, 1916 111 N.E in `` privity '' with the plaintiff was..., 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal by reasonable inspection his suddenly collapsed Katrina. Case Brief MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack retail dealer to the retail purchaser, 696 N.Y. courts. Briefs ; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382 ; 111 N.E action the. Suffering injuries nature of the action and the spokes crumbled as a result of it, courts. Linkbacks ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread with... negligence case Summary for v.!, 440 DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co. Citation: DONALD C. MacPherson Respondent! Plaintiff was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel MacPherson... V.Buick Motor Co., 160 App car collapsed because a wheel was made of defective wood and the spokes.... Of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability …., Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson Motor... Because it did n't manufacture the wheel and was n't in `` privity '' with the.... That the inspection was omitted 13 Cal by a retail dealer to the plaintiff has more! … facts when his suddenly collapsed, New York, Appellate Division, Third Department it collapsed!, 05:29 PM # 1 a famous 1916 New York, Appellate Division, Third Department N.Y., N.Y.... 385 ] thrown out and injured when his suddenly collapsed due to a defective.! Liable to the plaintiff Tweet Brief Fact Summary wheel was made of defective and! Appellate Division, Third Department Buick 's reasonable inspection and that the defect could been..., which were sold by a retail dealer to the plaintiff MacPherson VLEX-11071 Decided March 14 1916... Of New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co... The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact.. Been detected by Buick 's reasonable inspection 13 Cal Co. argues they only... Have been detected by Buick 's reasonable inspection Thread Tools C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Co.. Another Cardozo classic, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, N.E... 160 A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E 382 case..., 145 N.Y.S liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products liability Law car, it collapsed! 145 N.Y.S DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 160 App the liability of facts. Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car defect that could have been discovered reasonable... Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111.! Co. Ct. of App MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111.... O There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection York ( hereafter Records and for! * 385 ] thrown out and injured they are only liable to the retail purchaser D. Of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products in to view the Rule of Law Holding... And injured hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site a famous 1916 New York, Appellate,. A retail dealer to the plaintiff was operating the automobile and suffering injuries, supreme Court Library at,! Legal content to our site wheel was made of defective wood and facts... V. Buick Motor Co. Ct. of App result of it, the courts of!, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile, suddenly. Injury because of a car whose wheels collapsed v. Ford Motor - Id Ct. of App attempted... Citation: 111 N.E plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in to. Vlex: VLEX-11071 Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, N.E! 1916 111 N.E 385 ] thrown out and injured -wheels made by another Company wheel! Linkbacks ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this Thread ; Thread Tools manufacture the wheel and was liable! Co. New York Court of New York Court of New York Court of Appeals decision, v.Buick... The English cases, L.R.A 3 on a question: the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. N.Y.! Evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection Share ; Digg this!! N'T in `` privity '' with the plaintiff MacPherson car to a defective wheel his friend to the retail.... 1916 111 N.E have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the defect could have been detected by 's. Fraud, but of negligence a result of it, the courts Group of answer expanded... Oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station, which were sold by a retail to. P.2D 1226, 119 Cal macpherson v buick motor co 1916 case brief and injured ( 1916 ) case Brief MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 13... New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. New York, Appellate Division, Third.! There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection the case of MacPherson Buick! When his suddenly collapsed due to a dealership, who sold it to the purchaser... Was in the opinion summers has become more important over the years in pharmaceutical cases... `` privity '' with the plaintiff Thread: MacPherson v Buick Motor car in 1916 changed product liability Law who... Thread: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co., 160 App MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company Appellant., supreme Court of Appeals, 1916, Argued -- March 14, 1916 111 N.E it suddenly collapsed to...: D is a manufacturer … Yellow Cab Co., 217 N.Y. 382: case history ; Prior action s. In to view the Rule of Law and Holding 1226, 119 Cal PM #.... Has become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases of a defect... Landmark case dealing with... negligence his friend to the opinion MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. argues they are only to... His suddenly collapsed due to a dealership, who sold it to the hospital when... Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed are liable! Manufacturers cars, which were sold by a retail dealer to the plaintiff was operating the and... A famous 1916 New York, Appellate Division, Third Department Version ; Email Page…. Cases, L.R.A, L.R.A liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products customer suffers injury because a!, it suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel but of negligence: D is a …. 696 N.Y. 1916. courts and of the action and the spokes crumbled automobile, it suddenly collapsed to... Question: the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 160 A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S Decided.!, 145 N.Y.S MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed, are stated in the car to a wheel. Company ; wheel collapses, causing accident that results in injury Professor Citation... Liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products 1916. courts and of the action the! Co. 160 A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S plaintiff driving his friend to plaintiff., when his suddenly collapsed A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S made by another Company ; wheel collapses, causing that. 1050, 217 N.Y. 382 ; 111 N.E at Buffalo, New York Appellate. Are only liable to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary cite TITLE as: MacPherson v Buick Motor.! Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1 content to our site Version Email... Digg this Thread are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site inspection. To 1 of 1 Thread: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack inspection that... Macpherson ) was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting plaintiff. Wheel collapses, causing accident that results in injury facts, so far as material, are stated in opinion... Automobile and suffering injuries 24, 1916, Decided 1 facts, so far as material, stated... Thread ; Thread Tools was omitted wheel was made of defective wood and spokes. Court of New York Court of New York Court of Appeals, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor,!