## Facts

- Buick Motor Company manufactured an automobile and sold it to a retail dealer, who resold it to Donald C. MacPherson.
- While MacPherson was driving, the automobile suddenly collapsed, throwing him out and injuring him.
- The failure was traced to a wheel with defective wood; the wheel’s spokes crumbled.
- Buick did not make the wheel; it purchased the wheel from another manufacturer.
- Evidence supported that a reasonable inspection by Buick would have discovered the defect, but the inspection was not performed.
- MacPherson alleged negligence (not fraud or intentional concealment).

## Issues

1. Whether an automobile manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care in negligence to an ultimate user who lacks privity of contract with the manufacturer.
2. Whether a product that becomes dangerous when negligently made can impose a duty on the manufacturer to remote users when the product is expected to be used without further inspection.
3. Whether a manufacturer of the finished product may avoid liability by claiming the defective component was supplied by a reputable third-party manufacturer.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for MacPherson.
- The court held that Buick owed a duty of care to MacPherson despite the absence of contractual privity.
- An automobile, if negligently constructed, is a product that can be reasonably expected to endanger life and limb; the manufacturer must use reasonable care for the safety of foreseeable users.
- Buick was not excused from liability by having purchased the wheel from another manufacturer; as the assembler and seller of the finished product, it had a duty to conduct reasonable inspection where defects were discoverable.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer’s negligence duty may extend beyond the immediate purchaser when the product, if negligently made, is reasonably certain to cause bodily harm and will be used by others without new tests.
- The duty in negligence rests on foreseeable risk of physical injury from negligent manufacture, not on privity of contract.
- The “thing of danger” category is not limited to inherently dangerous items; ordinary products can qualify when negligent construction makes serious injury reasonably foreseeable.
- A manufacturer of a finished product must make reasonable inspections of component parts when ordinary inspection would reveal defects; reliance on a supplier does not automatically defeat duty or liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that a manufacturer who places a finished product into the stream of commerce for use without further testing owes a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable users when negligent manufacture creates a foreseeable risk of serious physical harm, and that this duty is not limited by privity or avoided by sourcing defective components from third parties.


MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916)