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.Anita Bernstein The Reciprocal of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company in De Gruyter Journal of Tort Law Vol. 9 issue 1–2 August 2016 https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2016-0007 Retrieved 17 August 2017Cited with approval by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson UKHL 100
Facts The plaintiff, Donald C. MacPherson, a stonecutter, was injured when one of the wooden wheels of his 1910 Buick Runabout collapsed.France, M., How to Fix The Tort System, Business Week, published on 14 March 2005, archived on 6 March 2005, accessed on 25 March 2026 The defendant, Buick Motor Company, had manufactured the vehicle but not the wheel, which had been manufactured by another party but installed by the defendant. It was conceded that the defective wheel could have been discovered upon inspection. The defendant denied liability because the plaintiff had purchased the automobile from a dealer, rather than directly from the defendant.
Judgment In the earlier precedent, duty had been imposed on defendants by voluntary contract via privity as in an English case, Winterbottom v. Wright,Winterbottom v. Wright, 152 Eng. Rep. 402, 403 (Ex. 1842) (denying injured man's suit against manufacturer because the judge found no privity between the defendant carriage maker and the injured plaintiff), which is the precursor rule for product liability. The portion of the MacPherson opinion in which Cardozo demolished the privity bar to recovery is as follows:
Dissent Willard Bartlett wrote a dissenting opinion objecting to Cardozo's new rule and conclusion.
See also Donoghue v Stevenson AC 562, where Lord Atkin cited the decision with approval in the House of Lords. AC 562 at 598.
Notes
External links