MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTORS case brief

MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTORS

• alleged unreasonable conduct was the defective wheel

• ultimate injury – crash

• wheel manufacturer (Buick) sold wheel to car dealership

• MacPherson does not have a contract with Buick. Buick only had a contract with the dealership.

• The question is whether Buick owed a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the immediate purchaser, i.e. the dealership.

• Buick of course claims the privity doctrine, that it did not have a contract with MacPherson and therefore owed him no duty

• Cardozo: wants to do away with privity. He therefore latches onto Thomas v. Winchester, which held that he manufacturer of a falsely labeled poison was liable to the eventual victim even though there was an intervening druggist. Even though there was no privity between victim and manufacturer, the high risk of danger required the manufacturer to be dutiful of avoiding the injury.

• Cardozo is careful to say that he is using the principle of Thomas, not the actual result. (which comes out the other way)

• Devlin and Statler – dangerous objects require duty of manufacturer – these cases extend the rule of Thomas v. Winchester

TEST: if the product is reasonably certain to place life and limb in danger, and the manufacturer has added knowledge that the product will be used by persons other than the direct purchaser, the manufacturer has a duty to make it carefully (p. 542)

• in this case the test is satisfied: automobiles are reasonably certain to place life and limb in danger, and Buick had knowledge that persons other than the dealership would be using the car

• Holding: affirmed for plaintiff MacPherson – Buick had a duty and is liable

POLICY: Henderson (Tort Stories) shows how Cardozo minimized the facts in order to do away with the privity rule. Cardozo does not like the privity doctrine, and he sees this as a tipping point in US history – we need a new legal regime because of change in society. The principles of Thomas, that the danger must be imminent, do not change, but the things subject to the principle do change – they are whatever the needs of life in a developing civilization require them to be.