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
- Whether an automobile manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care in negligence to an ultimate user who lacks privity of contract with the manufacturer.
- 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.
- 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.