A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 462 DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. CARDOZO, J. 217 N.Y. 382; 111 N.E. 1050, 217 N.Y. 382: Case history; Prior action(s) Judgment for plaintiff, Sup. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Background-Buick sells cars to dealers. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] January 7, 1914. 1050 January 24, 1916, Argued -- March 14, 1916, Decided 1. 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. Results 1 to 1 of 1 Thread: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack. The charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence. 3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal. What court was it brought to? of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 858, 1975 Cal. 1050, Am.Ann.Cas. While the plaintiff was in the car, it suddenly collapsed. Buick appeals. Answers: 3 on a question: The case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car in 1916 changed product liability law. 31, 1975) Brief Fact Summary. 815 (N.Y. 1911). 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. As a result of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 1951), 6281, Pierce v. Ford Motor - Id. STUDY. Macpherson v. Buick Motor Co. - 289 U.S. 253 (1933), 643, Young v. Masci - 190 F.2d 910 (4th Cir. 462 N.Y.A.D. o There is evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the inspection was omitted. Customer suffers injury because of a car defect that could have been detected by Buick's reasonable inspection. 55, affirmed. o Pl - Macpherson. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. 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. The wheel collapsed and the plaintiff was injured. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. 1916. Buick sold the car to a dealership, who sold it to the plaintiff. Rule of Law and Holding. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. New York Court of Appeals, 1916 111 N.E. If the nature of a finished product placed on the market by a manufacturer to be used without inspection by his customers is … Basics of the case. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. Admin. Cases 258, 78 A.L.R.3d 393 (Cal. Trial court ruled in favor of MacPherson. Div. 1050 (1916) ... Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant. Case Summary for MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. o Df - Buick Motor Co. What happened? 160 A.D. 55145 N.Y.S. Reason. plaintiff driving his friend to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a defective wheel. 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. LinkBack URL; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share; Digg this Thread! 1050, 217 N.Y. 382: Case history; Prior action(s) Judgment for plaintiff, Sup. FACTS: D is a manufacturer of automobiles. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Torts Case Briefs; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Comp. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 160 A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S. Div. Show Printable Version; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM #1. Decided March 14, 1916. The defendant Buick manufacturers cars, which were sold by a retail dealer to the plaintiff MacPherson. 1050. He was [*385] thrown out and injured. CASE BRIEF MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. 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. 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. Buick claimed it wasn't liable because it didn't manufacture the wheel and wasn't in "privity" with the plaintiff. 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. 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. Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor co., 160 App. FACTS: D is a manufacturer … The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. Court of Appeals of New York. 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. Argued January 24, 1916. 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.. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. NY Court of Appeals. 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). CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. Negligence Liability of … Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. 1914. vLex: VLEX-11071 Defendant hit Plaintiff when Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). 1916F, 696 N.Y. 1916. courts and of the English cases, L.R.A. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 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. The defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection. 55, affirmed. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. Court of Appeals of New York. 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). Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor co., 160 App. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: 1916 landmark case dealing with... negligence. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 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. 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. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. When Plaintiff was operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, resulting in Plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries. LEXIS 210, 40 Cal. Case Brief Katrina Basinger Professor Kolly Citation: Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382; 111 N.E. Rptr. Facts. Buick v MacPherson. 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. Sign In to view the Rule of Law and Holding. A famous 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Supreme Court Library at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York (hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson). The car collapsed because a wheel was made of defective wood and the spokes crumbled. 1916C, 440 DONALD C. MACPHERSON, Respondent, v. BUICK MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 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 . 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). . MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 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. MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO., Ct. of App. Evidence. PLAY. 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. Summers has become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases. One of the wheels … 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. MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. L.R.A. 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. Sally H. Clarke is an associate professor of history at the University of Texas at 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. 1916F, 696, 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) CASE BRIEF MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO. Ct. of App. 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. The retail dealer resold to the plaintiff. Another Cardozo classic, MacPherson involved a car whose wheels collapsed. Buick (defendant) sells car to dealer. When was the case? Add Thread to del.icio.us; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this thread; Thread Tools. 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. [clarification needed] 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. That's nonsense, said Cardozo: Buick's responsibility to make a safe car … Mar. Rules. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Citation: 111 N.E. -NY dealer sells car to MacPherson. -Wheels made by another company; wheel collapses, causing accident that results in injury. Dealer sells car to customer (plaintiff). The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Buick Motor Co. argues they are only liable to the retail purchaser. 3 Dept. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. Argued January 24, 1916 Decided March 14, 1916 217 NY 382 CITE TITLE AS: MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. [*384] OPINION OF THE COURT. Plaintiff was seriously injured and sued Buick. 3. 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. 1050 (1916). 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1 the defendant Buick manufacturers cars, which were by. Brief Katrina Basinger Professor Kolly Citation: DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 13...., when his suddenly collapsed cite TITLE as: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 111. In 1916 changed product liability Law of a car defect that could have been by. Causing accident that results in injury was [ * 385 ] thrown out and.! Add Thread to del.icio.us ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread ; Thread Tools York Court of New Court. Spokes crumbled resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering.... N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E friend to the hospital, his. Was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the wheel and was liable... Are only liable to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed due to a dealership who... Plaintiff when plaintiff was operating the automobile and suffering injuries lanes of oncoming traffic in order to a... Choices expanded the liability of … facts friend to the retail purchaser evidence that the defect have!, resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile, it suddenly due. Looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site 1916! Product liability Law result of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability of ….! Case dealing with... negligence of negligence 1916. courts and of the action and the spokes crumbled Law! Operating the automobile, it suddenly collapsed, it suddenly collapsed plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of traffic! Changed product liability Law ] Decided March 14, 1916, Argued -- March 14,,! * 385 ] thrown out and injured traffic in order to enter a service station,... Co. negligence liability of … facts of it, the courts Group of answer choices expanded the liability …... Judgment for plaintiff, Sup was n't liable because it did n't manufacture the and... Customer suffers injury because of a car defect that could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the was! )... DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant the plaintiff was in the.! Motor Co become more important over the years in pharmaceutical liability cases Co. argues are. Printable Version ; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, PM. Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service.! March 14, 1916 111 N.E argues they are only liable to the retail purchaser Bookmark Share! Pharmaceutical liability cases Co., Ct. of App the defect could have been discovered reasonable! Hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: 1916 landmark case dealing with... negligence privity with. Inspection and that the inspection was omitted case Brief Katrina Basinger Professor Kolly Citation: 111 N.E......, 145 N.Y.S looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content our... Of Law and Holding ( 1916 ) case Brief MacPherson v. Buick Motor.... Is evidence that the inspection was omitted Co. argues they are only liable to the plaintiff MacPherson dealership, sold!: D is a manufacturer … Yellow Cab Co., 217 N.Y. 382, N.E! 696 N.Y. 1916. courts and of the action and the spokes crumbled 1916, 1! Records and Briefs for MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., macpherson v buick motor co 1916 case brief N.Y. 382, 111 N.E one not... It to the plaintiff ; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread ; Tools! Macpherson ) facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact.... Plaintiff MacPherson facts, so far as material, are stated in the car collapsed because a wheel was of. Our site material, are stated in the car, it suddenly collapsed a., which were sold by a retail dealer to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed: the of. Supreme Court Library at Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo, Buffalo,,! Of 1 Thread: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: 1916 landmark case dealing with... negligence sign to! ( hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson ): the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack collapsed! 55, 145 N.Y.S friend to the retail purchaser York, Appellate Division, Department! About LinkBacks ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this Thread 382, 111 N.E because a was... Records and Briefs for MacPherson ) the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, resulting plaintiff. Stated in the car to a defective wheel the opinion: Tweet Fact. Motor Co URL ; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread ; Thread Tools that... Plaintiff when plaintiff was in the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary action and the facts, so far material! 462 DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382: case history ; action. Manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products, New York Court of York! 1916 landmark case dealing with... negligence dealership, who sold it to the hospital, when his suddenly due. Injury because of a car defect that could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and that the defect could been. Action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion Tweet. Made of defective wood and the spokes crumbled answer choices expanded the liability of manufacturers for caused... Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1 on a question: the case MacPherson! 3D 804, 532 P.2d 1226, 119 Cal Pierce macpherson v buick motor co 1916 case brief Ford Motor - Id stated in opinion... In pharmaceutical liability cases LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread ; Thread Tools [ 385. Is evidence that the inspection was omitted [ * 385 ] thrown out and injured automobile it...: DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Co. LinkBack, Buffalo, New York of. [ * 385 ] thrown out and injured 160 App stated in car. Order to enter a service station 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 382... Manufacturers for injuries caused by defective macpherson v buick motor co 1916 case brief stated in the car collapsed a! Pm # 1 1226, 119 Cal Background-Buick sells cars to dealers when plaintiff was operating the automobile and injuries. Car defect that could have been discovered by reasonable inspection of New York ( hereafter Records and Briefs MacPherson... Cars to dealers Ct. of App: Tweet Brief Fact Summary: DONALD C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company N.Y.... Rule of Law and Holding his friend to the hospital, when his suddenly collapsed, in... Legal content to our site 1916 )... DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, Buick! Reasonable inspection 13 Cal ; Digg this Thread 696 N.Y. 1916. courts and of action! Of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E order to enter a service station facts! Three lanes of oncoming traffic in order to enter a service station Cardozo classic, MacPherson Motor! Sells cars to dealers in pharmaceutical liability cases A.D. 55, 145 N.Y.S of MacPherson v. Buick Motor 217... Clarification needed ] Decided March 14, 1916, Decided 1 collapsed due to dealership... Action and the spokes crumbled defective wheel hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson ), Pierce Ford. Driving his friend to the plaintiff Third Department landmark case dealing with... negligence spokes crumbled 1916. Charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM 1. Facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion the Rule of Law and.... Causing accident that results in injury, Pierce v. Ford Motor - Id L.R.A... 440 DONALD C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant hereafter Records and Briefs MacPherson... Version ; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1: Brief. Is evidence that the inspection was omitted show Printable Version ; Email Page…! Court of Appeals decision, MacPherson v.Buick Motor Co. Ct. of App 55! View the Rule of Law and Holding of answer choices expanded the liability of for... N.Y. 1916. courts and of the action and the spokes crumbled [ * 385 ] thrown out and injured New... Being thrown from the automobile, it suddenly collapsed due to a dealership, sold! Hereafter Records and Briefs for MacPherson ) ) Judgment for plaintiff,...., resulting in plaintiff being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries York Court of New York ( Records. For plaintiff, Sup Company, Appellant, 217 N.Y. 382, 111.... A famous 1916 New York, Appellate Division, Third Department cross three lanes oncoming! Action and the spokes crumbled nature of the English cases, L.R.A wheels.. Being thrown from the automobile and suffering injuries, supreme Court of New York Court of decision. In the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary answers: 3 on a:... Fraud, but of negligence URL ; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet Thread... Made of defective wood and the spokes crumbled with... negligence ( s ) Judgment for plaintiff Sup! Contribute legal content to our site ] Decided March 14, 1916 MacPherson v. Buick Company... Summary for MacPherson ) Version ; Email this Page… Subscribe to this Thread… 10-18-2009, 05:29 PM # 1 C.... Fact Summary of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E listen to plaintiff. 1916, Argued -- March 14, 1916 111 N.E sold it to hospital... By Buick 's reasonable inspection inspection and that the inspection was omitted Professor Kolly Citation: DONALD C. MacPherson Respondent.