Macpherson V. Buick Motor Company Case Study

Everyday billions of consumers purchase products across the entire world. As natural consumers, this is a way to buy things that are seen as beneficial for whatever the reason may be. This could include benefitting one’s health or well-being or simply meeting personals wants and needs. In the United States, buying and selling products is so common that many underlying factors of what goes into the process go unnoticed, up until something goes wrong. As a consumer, you naturally expect that what you are buying is 100% safe, secure, and authentic because most of the time this is the case. However, for the times when something does go wrong, it is important to know the legalities of product liability as both a producer and a consumer. “Product

It is largely agreed upon that the case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 111 N.E. 1050, 1053 (N.Y. 1916) was the start of it all. This is the landmark case in which the defendant manufacturer was found liable for negligence even though there was no contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the plaintiff (Bagley, C. E. 2016).
Case Brief. The plaintiff, MacPherson, bought a car from a retail dealership, and was injured when his wheel collapsed because it was made of defective wood. Plaintiff sued the Defendant, Buick Motor Co., even though the car was not purchased directly from them. Buick Motor Co. was the original manufacturer of the car and sued on an action for negligence. Defendant had purchased the faulty wheel from another manufacturer and failed to perform a proper inspection before reselling it to a retail dealer (Casebriefs).
Facts. The automobile was purchased by MacPherson from Close Brothers of Schenectady, who had purchased it from Buick Motor Co., the manufacturer, in 1909. The defendant had bought the wheel from the Imperial Wheel Company, a reputable manufacturer of wheels, whose factory was situated about one hundred yards from the defendant's factory. When received by the defendant the wheel was ironed and was primed with one coat of paint. The defendant made no examination of it when received, except to see that it had not been blemished in shipment

Product liability says yes. As defined in the text above liability extends to anyone in the chain of distribution: manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. Under the circumstances, the defendant owed a duty to all purchasers of its automobiles to make a reasonable inspection to determine whether the wheels purchased were reasonably fit for the purposes for which they would used. If it fails to exercise care in that respect it is responsible for any defect which would have been discovered by such reasonable inspection (Berkeley.edu). In this case, Buick Motor Co. failed to perform a reasonable inspection that could have determined that the wheel on MacPherson’s vehicle was defective. Buick Motor Co. was found negligent for not inspecting the wheels and was responsible for the finished product sold by its dealer. Therefore, judgement and order were affirmed with