Buick manufactured an automobile and sold it to a retail dealer, which then sold it to MacPherson, the ultimate purchaser. One of the car’s wooden wheels, made by another manufacturer and incorporated by Buick, collapsed while MacPherson was driving, causing injury. MacPherson alleged the wheel was defective and that Buick could have discovered the defect by reasonable inspection. There was no direct contractual privity between MacPherson and Buick.
Does a manufacturer of a product that, if negligently made, is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril owe a duty of care to the ultimate purchaser even without contractual privity?
A manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care to persons beyond the immediate purchaser when the product, if negligently made, is reasonably certain to be dangerous to life or limb and the manufacturer knows the product will be used by persons other than the buyer without new tests. Privity is not required in such circumstances.
Yes. Buick owed MacPherson a duty of care despite the absence of privity, and it could be held liable for negligence if it failed to use reasonable care in inspecting the wheel.
Judge Cardozo rejected the older limitation that only inherently dangerous products create liability to nonprivity users. He reasoned that an automobile, though not inherently dangerous in the abstract, becomes a thing of danger when negligently made, and Buick knew the car would be used by the purchaser without further testing. Because Buick was in a position to inspect the wheel and the danger of a defective wheel was foreseeable, Buick owed a duty directly to the ultimate user. The court thus extended negligence liability based on foreseeability of harm rather than contractual relation.
MacPherson is a foundational products-liability case because it dismantled the privity barrier in negligence suits against manufacturers and expanded duty based on foreseeable risk to users. It built on and effectively transformed the exception recognized in Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (1852), and it helped pave the way for modern products liability, later reflected in cases such as Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944), and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897 (1963).
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →