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