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