Friday, October 10, 2014

McPherson v. Buick Motor case brief summary


McPherson v. Buick Motor case brief summary

F: D, a manufacturer of automobiles, sold an automobile to P thru. a retail dealer. P was injured due to the defective part, which was bought from another manufacturer by D. There is evidence that defects could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, which was not conducted by D.
TC ruled in favor of P, AC affirmed. 


I: Whether a manufacturer, who is not in a direct privity of contract with the end user, owes a duty of care and vigilance to end
user as long as the danger is to be expected as reasonably certain regardless of the nature of danger is inherent or imminent.


R: A manufacturer, who is not in a direct privity of contract with the end user, owes a duty of care and vigilance to end user as long as the danger is to be expected as reasonably certain


A:
D was not absolved from a duty of inspection b/c it bought the wheels from a reputable manufacturer. It was not merely a
dealer in automobiles. It was responsible for the finished product. It was not at liberty to put the finished product on the market
w/o subjecting the component parts to ordinary and simple tests.
C: affirmed


Co: P is not in privity of contract with D
Now, law changes.
Nowadays, manufacturer cannot avoid tort lawsuit.
Customer can sue every person in chain today. Tort swept away the contractural part. (contract << tort)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.