VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 1 POSTED ON: 5/16/2009
2de9723a-e1e5-446d-b50b-2ab8465880ca.doc Page 403 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., Court of Appeals of NY, 1916 Did ∆ owned any duty to the ∏ or just the dealer who bough the car from ∆? Issue Reasoning No longer the case that the duty is just to the other party of a K. Have put the source of obligation where it ought to be. A car is “inherently dangerous” when improperly constructed. Even though the wheel was bought from a 3rd party, ∆ was still under duty to inspect the vehicle – ∆ is responsible for the finished product. Rule In case of negligence, a mfg is liable to the intended end users of a product if danger is foreseeable. Facts ∏ bought a Buick from a dealer. The car turned to have a defective wheel which collapsed causing ∏’s injuries. ∏ sued the ∆ car manufacturer. The wheel was made by a supplier and not the ∆ but the defect could’ve been discovered with reasonable inspection. Held Procedure P argues D argues Affirmed. Appellate division and Supreme Court affirmed judgment for ∏. ∆ appealed. Wheel bough from 3rd party – didn’t have to inspect it. I owe duty to dealer only.
Pages to are hidden for
"DutyOfCare_PrivityOfContract-MacPherson_v_BuickMotorCo"Please download to view full document