Insights / Product liability

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co: The Foundation of Product Liability

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co, 217 N.Y. 382 (1916), New York Court of Appeals, decided 14 March 1916 (Cardozo J) · Opinion on NY Courts

Facts

Buick sold a car to a retail dealer, who resold it to MacPherson. One of the wheels, made of defective wood, collapsed and MacPherson was thrown from the car and injured. Buick had bought the wheel from another manufacturer and had not inspected it, although reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect.

Decision

Judgment for MacPherson was affirmed. Buick argued that it owed no duty because MacPherson had bought from the dealer, not from Buick. The court rejected the privity defence: "If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger." A manufacturer of such a product owes a duty of care to the ultimate user, and cannot avoid that duty by relying on a component supplier.

Why it matters for liability business

• Exposure runs to the end user. A manufacturer's liability is not limited to its direct customers. Product liability underwriting and claims assessment must look at everyone the product is likely to reach.
• Component defects remain the manufacturer's risk. Buying in a part does not transfer the duty to inspect. Recovery against the component supplier is a separate question.
• Recovery and subrogation. Where a component failure caused the loss, insurers should identify the supply chain early and preserve contractual indemnities and recovery rights.
• Modern relevance. The case marks the move from contract-based to negligence-based product liability in the US, which later developed further into strict liability.

General information only, not legal advice.