Torts
217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916)
Study notes for McPherson v. Buick Motor Co.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A manufacturer can be held liable for negligence to consumers who are not in privity of contract if the product is expected to be used by them.
In this landmark case, Professor McPherson highlighted the transformation of product liability law, emphasizing that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers that extends beyond contractual relationships. He would point out the significance of the court's consideration of the foreseeable risks involved with a consumer good and the responsibilities manufacturers have to prevent harm resulting from defective products. The ruling also represented a shift toward recognizing a broader scope of negligence, suggesting that inspection and quality assurance practices are essential in maintaining consumer safety.
M for Manufacturer's duty, C for Consumer safety - MC leads to liability.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Donoghue v. Stevenson | While similar in establishing the concept of duty of care to consumers, Donoghue focused on the manufacturer's liability stemming from a direct consumption of the product, while McPherson emphasizes the duty of care even in the absence of contractual privity. |
| Moore v. Whelan | Moore involved a question of liability between vendors in the chain of sale, emphasizing privity, whereas McPherson extends liability directly to manufacturers. |
The ruling fosters greater consumer protection by imposing a duty on manufacturers to ensure product safety, which encourages higher standards in manufacturing practices.
Imposing liability on manufacturers without privity could lead to excessive litigation and increased costs, potentially harming businesses and leading to higher prices for consumers.
This case often appears on exams to illustrate the evolution of negligence in tort law, particularly regarding the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers without privity of contract.