[Torts] 7. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916)

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. --- 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) FactThe Plaintiff(P), MacPherson, purchased an automobile from a dealer. While driving the car, one of the wheels broke apart, causing P to be injured. The defendant(D), Buick Motor Company, manufactured the automobile, but purchased the wheel from Imperial Wheel Company of Flint, a reputable manufacturer of automobile wheels. D relied on them to conduct the necessary tests and released them to the market without further test itself. P sued D for negligence. The judgement entered for P. D appealed. IssueWhether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to an ultimate user of its product despite the absence of privity. Rule-HoldingA manufacturer owes a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable ultimate users when the product, if negligently manufactured or inspected, is reasonably certain to endanger life or limb when put to its intended use, even absent privity. -Supporting AuthoritiesThomas v. Winchester (6 N. Y. 397)(mislabeled poison -> liable to the customer) Devlin v. Smith and Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co. (defective Scaffold -> liable to the servant)  ApplicationHere, D's vehicle was dangerous when it was not inspected properly. D failed to inspect the wheel despite the foreseeable risk that a defective wheel could cause serious injury to those who may use it. Also, they could infer their automobiles would be driven by any person other than the immediate client because they contracted with a car dealer. Thus, D has a duty to P because its danger and ultimate use were foreseeable. Furthermore, there was no intervening cause in this case. Therefore, D has a duty of care for P.  ConclusionJudgement affirmed.  <동영상 분석> -가장 어려웠던 질문Q: What's the relationship between privity and requirements of Negligence?내 답변: even without privity, there is still duty because of the causation.Q-1: 그러면 왜 이 케이스에서 privity가 중요하냐?내 답변: 기업이 privity 없음을 이유로 의무와 책임을 회피하는 것을 막기 위해서. 결론적으로 소비자 보호와 생명의 안전이라는 공익적인 이유로 중요하다.A: Because this case eliminated privity requirement from torts area. -내가 잘못 생각한 질문Q: 만약 제조사나 경찰이 reasonable한 inspection 후에도 위험을 발견하지 못했다고 주장하면 어떻게 되나?내 답변: 책임 없다. reasonable inspection 했는데도 책임을 지우는 것은 모든 위험을 완벽하게 예견해야 한다는 말인가?다른 학생 답변: Still foreseeable. 위험 발견 못했어도 여전히 위험을 예견 predict할 수 있기 때문.다른 학생2 답변: jury가 결정할 사항이다. 진짜로 그 inspection이 reasonable했는지, 아니면 다른 사람이 했을 때 발견될 수 있었던 것인지.A: Jury의 결정이 reasonable person의 common sense이기 때문에 jury가 결정해야 할 사항이 맞다. Jury가 reasonable 하지 않다고 결정하면 그들의 reasonable inspection은 reasonable하지 않았던 것이 된다.