This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
MacPherson v. Buick: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
At the 2nd trial, MacPherson won a judgment of $5,000. | At the 2nd trial, MacPherson won a judgment of $5,000. | ||
|issues=Does the manufacturer of a product owe a '''duty of care''' to anyone other than the initial purchaser? | |issues=Does the manufacturer of a product owe a '''duty of care''' to anyone other than the initial purchaser? | ||
|holding=Yes. The manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to users than the initial purchaser (here the car dealership). | |||
|rule=Duty of care for car manufacturers: | |||
#the product is reasonably likely to create a danger if it's negligently manufactured | |||
#the product will be used by people other than the original purchaser & without additional testing. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/macpherson_buick.htm | |link=https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/macpherson_buick.htm | ||
Revision as of 18:05, July 3, 2023
| MacPherson v. Buick | |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New York |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | March 14, 1916 |
Facts
MacPherson bought his Buick Model 10 car for $900 in 1908 ($30,300 in 2023); the dealer had bought the car directly from Buick.
In July 1911, MacPherson was driving his car at 8 mi/h when his left rear wheel collapsed. His car spun out of control & he was injured. The cause of the wheel collapse was defective wood. Buick had purchased the wheel from a supplier. Apparently, Buick hadn't inspected the wheel before selling the car to the dealer.Procedural History
MacPherson sued Buick, the automobile manufacturer, in a NY state court.
MacPherson lost, but the NY Appellate Division reversed the decision.
At the 2nd trial, MacPherson won a judgment of $5,000.Issues
Does the manufacturer of a product owe a duty of care to anyone other than the initial purchaser?
Holding
Yes. The manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to users than the initial purchaser (here the car dealership).
Rule
Duty of care for car manufacturers:
- the product is reasonably likely to create a danger if it's negligently manufactured
- the product will be used by people other than the original purchaser & without additional testing.
