[Torts] 7. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

[jhj2799]

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

Facts: The defendant, Buick Motor Co., a manufacturer of automobiles, sold a car to a retail dealer, who subsequently sold it to the plaintiff, MacPherson. While MacPherson was in the car, it collapsed due to a defective wheel, which crumbled into fragments. The wheel, made by another manufacturer, had defects that could have been discovered through reasonable inspection, which Buick Motor Co. omitted. The plaintiff alleged negligence, not fraud.

Issue: Whether Buick Motor Co. owed a duty of care and vigilance to the plaintiff, a third-party user of the automobile, even though there was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and Buick Motor Co.

Rule: A manufacturer of a product that is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made owes a duty of care to those who use the product, even if they are not the direct purchasers. This principle, derived from Thomas v. Winchester and extended through cases like Devlin v. Smith and Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., establishes that the manufacturer is liable if the danger is foreseeable, and the product is used without new tests.

Application:

The court determined that an automobile, designed to travel at high speeds, is inherently a thing of danger if negligently constructed.

Buick Motor Co. knew the potential danger and that the car would be used by persons other than the dealer, such as the plaintiff. This was apparent from the size of the car, which had seats for three persons, indicating it was meant for multiple users. It was also evident from the fact that the buyer was a dealer in cars, who bought the vehicle to resell. It could be said almost with certainty that the car would not be used by the dealer himself but by his customers.

The defect in the wheel was a result of negligence that could have been detected by reasonable inspection. Despite purchasing the wheel from another manufacturer, Buick Motor Co. had the responsibility to ensure the safety of the finished product. The plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defect, making Buick Motor Co. liable.

Conclusion: Buick Motor Co. owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, MacPherson. The company's failure to inspect the wheel and ensure its safety constituted negligence, leading to the plaintiff's injury. Therefore, Buick Motor Co. was liable for the damages. The judgment was affirmed.

Feedback & Notes:

Privity no longer a requirement because of this case; anybody who is injured by the defective product could be a plaintiff

Negligence requirement is not necessary because strict liability applies here.

Many defenses available for the manufacturer (memorize important rules of law)

1.     Lack of Privity of Contract: The manufacturer could argue that there was no direct contractual relationship (privity) between the plaintiff and the manufacturer. Historically, this defense was significant, as manufacturers were generally only considered liable to those with whom they had a direct contract. However, this defense was significantly weakened by the ruling in this case, which established that a duty of care exists beyond direct contractual relationships when the product is inherently dangerous.

2.     Reasonable Reliance on Supplier: Buick Motor Co. could argue that it reasonably relied on the expertise and quality assurance of the wheel manufacturer. If they could demonstrate that the wheel supplier was reputable and had a good track record, they might claim that it was reasonable to assume the wheels were safe without additional inspection.

3.     Contributory Negligence: The manufacturer could attempt to prove that the plaintiff was partially responsible for the accident. For instance, if the plaintiff had used the car in an improper or unforeseeable manner that contributed to the wheel's failure, this could mitigate the manufacturer’s liability.

4.     Assumption of Risk: The manufacturer might argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of using the automobile. This would involve showing that the plaintiff was aware of the potential risks and chose to use the car despite this knowledge. However, this defense would be difficult to establish unless the plaintiff had specific knowledge of the defect.

5.     Compliance with Industry Standards: Buick Motor Co. could argue that they complied with all industry standards and regulations in manufacturing and inspecting the automobile. If they could demonstrate adherence to accepted practices, they might claim that they exercised due diligence and were not negligent.

6.     Intervening Cause: The manufacturer could argue that an intervening cause, such as improper maintenance by the dealer or the plaintiff, was the actual reason for the defect leading to the accident. If they could show that the defect resulted from an external factor occurring after the car left their control, this could potentially absolve them of liability.

Strict liability requirement

-       Defective condition of the product: generally, plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove the defect and causation (because of the defect, I was injured); but as an exception, the burden may be shifted to the defendant, in what case? HW. Hint. Medical malpractice, mass manufacturing (automobile)

In strict liability cases, the burden of proof typically rests with the plaintiff to establish that a defect existed and that the defect caused the injury. However, there are certain circumstances under which the burden may shift to the defendant. These exceptions generally arise in situations where proving the defect or causation would be unreasonably difficult for the plaintiff. For example, these exceptions are applicable in both medical malpractice and mass manufacturing cases because they address situations where the defendant is in a better position to provide evidence regarding the absence of negligence or causation. The rationale is to prevent injustice where the plaintiff would otherwise face significant challenges in proving their case due to the defendant’s control over the relevant evidence. The following are notable exceptions where the burden of proof may shift to the defendant:

1.     Res Ipsa Loquitur: This doctrine applies when the nature of the accident is such that it would not normally occur without negligence, and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the harm. In such cases, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent. For example, if a product fails in a way that strongly suggests a defect, and the product was under the defendant's control, the burden may shift.

-       Application: In medical malpractice, this doctrine applies when the injury is of a type that does not normally occur without negligence, and the instrumentality causing the injury was under the control of the healthcare provider. For example, if a surgical instrument is left inside a patient's body after surgery, the burden may shift to the defendant to prove that there was no negligence.

-       Application: In the context of mass manufacturing, res ipsa loquitur can apply if the defect is such that it would not typically occur without negligence, and the manufacturer had control over the production process. For example, if a new car’s brakes fail causing an accident, and it is determined that brakes should not fail under normal use, the burden may shift to the manufacturer to prove that they exercised due care.

2.     Bailment Cases: When a bailee (one who temporarily possesses goods owned by another) returns goods in a damaged condition, there is a presumption that the bailee was negligent. The burden shifts to the bailee to prove that the damage was not due to their negligence. An example would be a car that is damaged while in a repair shop's custody.

3.     Exclusive Control: If the defendant had exclusive control over the product at the time the defect likely occurred, the burden may shift to the defendant to show that the defect did not exist when the product was within their control. This is particularly relevant in cases where the plaintiff cannot reasonably identify the specific defect.

4.     Foreign Objects in Food Products: In cases involving foreign objects found in food products, the burden often shifts to the defendant (manufacturer) to prove that the object was not present when the product left their control. The rationale is that it would be unduly burdensome for consumers to prove how the object got into the food.

5.     Violation of Safety Statutes or Regulations: When a defendant violates a safety statute or regulation intended to protect a specific class of people (which includes the plaintiff), and the violation leads to the plaintiff’s injury, the burden may shift to the defendant to prove that the violation was not the cause of the injury. This is sometimes referred to as negligence per se, but it can have implications for strict liability as well.

-       Application: If a healthcare provider violates a specific statute or regulation designed to protect patient safety, and the violation leads to the patient's injury, the burden may shift to the defendant to prove that the violation was not the cause of the injury. For instance, if a doctor operates without a required medical license, and the patient is harmed, the doctor may need to prove that the lack of licensure was not causally related to the injury.

-       Application: If an automobile manufacturer violates federal or state safety standards or regulations, and a defect causes injury, the burden can shift to the manufacturer to prove that the violation did not cause the injury. For instance, if a car does not meet crash safety standards and an occupant is injured in a crash, the manufacturer may need to prove that the failure to meet standards did not cause the injury.

6.     Product Recalls and Known Defects: If a product is subject to a recall or the manufacturer has acknowledged the existence of a defect, the burden may shift to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the defect that prompted the recall.

-       Application: If an automobile manufacturer issues a recall for a known defect, and a plaintiff is injured by that defect, the burden may shift to the manufacturer to prove that the injury was not caused by the defect that prompted the recall. For example, if airbags are recalled for malfunctioning and an injury occurs due to an airbag malfunction, the manufacturer may have to prove that the malfunction was not due to the known defect.