Macpherson v. Buick Motor case brief
Facts: Defendant makes automobiles; they sold an automobile to a retail dealer who resold it to the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s car collapsed and he was thrown out and injured. One of the wheels was made of defective wood which was not made by defendant but by someone else. Plaintiff says that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care not to be negligent to the plaintiff, and not only to the immediate purchaser. Verdict for plaintiff in supreme and appellate.
Decision: Affirmed for plaintiff.
Reasoning: Cardozo wanted to place limits on why manufacturers are going to be held liable. They basically made it necessary to either have reseller conduct their own tests or to force manufacturer to be extra careful. He also placed a limit and made it so the danger is probable and not just possible. Source of the obligation should be the manufacturer because they are in the best position to inspect it. Basically placed a limit, higher the danger, greater need of caution and inspection.
Holding: If the nature of a thing is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger and its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected as long as the product in question is going to be used by a 3rd party and no additional tests will be ordered then manufacturer is liable.