GOVT 280-001
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382
Parties: Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant.
Counsel: Edgar T. Brackett, for respondent. William Van Dyke, for appellant.
Judges: Cardozo, J. Hiscock, Chase and Cuddeback, JJ., concur with Cardozo, J., and Hogan,
J., concurs in result. Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., reads dissenting opinion; Pound, J., not voting.
Procedural History: Appeal, by permission, from a judgement of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 8, 1914, affirming a judgement
in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
Summary of Facts: The defendant, an automobile manufacturer, obtained wheels for its
automobiles from a separate manufacturer; they also sold their vehicles to other retailers. The
plaintiff, a customer of the defendant, purchased one of the defendant’s vehicles from a dealer.
The Plaintiff was riding in the vehicle when it collapsed and injured the plaintiff, prompting
them to sue the defendant for negligence. A jury verdict was rendered in the plaintiff’s favor.
On an appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that the defendant was not absolved from a duty of
inspection on the ground that it bought the wheels from a reputable manufacturer.
Issues: Whether or not the defendant would be liable for negligently failing to inspect a
car bought by the plaintiff.
Holding: The court held that the judgement holding the defendant liable would be affirmed.
Rules: The rules in this case are Duty, Marketing and Warning Defects,
Negligence, Construction Defects, and Duty to Repair.
Rationale By: Cardozo.
Rationale: The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. It sold an automobile to a retail
dealer. The retail dealer resold to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in the car, it suddenly
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382
Parties: Donald C. MacPherson, Respondent, v. Buick Motor Company, Appellant.
Counsel: Edgar T. Brackett, for respondent. William Van Dyke, for appellant.
Judges: Cardozo, J. Hiscock, Chase and Cuddeback, JJ., concur with Cardozo, J., and Hogan,
J., concurs in result. Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., reads dissenting opinion; Pound, J., not voting.
Procedural History: Appeal, by permission, from a judgement of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 8, 1914, affirming a judgement
in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict.
Summary of Facts: The defendant, an automobile manufacturer, obtained wheels for its
automobiles from a separate manufacturer; they also sold their vehicles to other retailers. The
plaintiff, a customer of the defendant, purchased one of the defendant’s vehicles from a dealer.
The Plaintiff was riding in the vehicle when it collapsed and injured the plaintiff, prompting
them to sue the defendant for negligence. A jury verdict was rendered in the plaintiff’s favor.
On an appeal, the court affirmed, reasoning that the defendant was not absolved from a duty of
inspection on the ground that it bought the wheels from a reputable manufacturer.
Issues: Whether or not the defendant would be liable for negligently failing to inspect a
car bought by the plaintiff.
Holding: The court held that the judgement holding the defendant liable would be affirmed.
Rules: The rules in this case are Duty, Marketing and Warning Defects,
Negligence, Construction Defects, and Duty to Repair.
Rationale By: Cardozo.
Rationale: The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. It sold an automobile to a retail
dealer. The retail dealer resold to the plaintiff. While the plaintiff was in the car, it suddenly
