BUS-FPX3021 ASSESSMENT 2 INSTRUCTIONS: CASE LAW ANALYSIS AND EXECUTIVE BRIEFING
Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
| Attribute |
Detail |
| Parties |
Donald C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company |
| Court & Date Decided |
New York Court of Appeals (Decided March 14, 1916) |
| Course Reference |
BUS-FPX3021 Fundamentals of Business Law |
I. Introduction: The Death of Privity
The 1916 New York Court of Appeals decision in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. stands as one of the most seminal rulings in American common law, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of modern product liability. Before this case, manufacturers largely sheltered themselves behind the doctrine of “privity of contract,” which held that a party could only sue another party with whom they had a direct contractual relationship.
This rigid legal barrier meant that if a consumer was injured by a defective product purchased from a retailer, they could only sue the retailer, not the original manufacturer. Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s masterful majority opinion dismantled this archaic restriction, establishing the manufacturer’s duty of care to the ultimate consumer, regardless of the intermediate sale. The legacy of MacPherson is the bedrock of contemporary consumer safety law and corporate ethical accountability, an essential topic within the scope of the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
II. Case Summary and Factual Background
The case originated from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Donald C. MacPherson against Buick Motor Company. MacPherson had purchased a new 1909 Buick Runabout from a retail dealer, who, in turn, had acquired the vehicle directly from the manufacturer, Buick Motor Company. While MacPherson was driving the car, one of its wooden wheels collapsed, causing the vehicle to crash and resulting in significant injuries to the driver. The core issue of liability arose from the fact that the defective wheel was not manufactured by Buick Motor Co. itself; rather, it was purchased from another component supplier.
Despite the outsourced component, the court found that a reasonable inspection by Buick Motor Co. would have easily revealed the defects in the wheel’s wood and construction. Buick Motor Co. argued that its responsibility ceased once the product was sold to the independent dealer, contending that the dealer, as the immediate seller, was the proper defendant. This argument was a classic defense relying on the established rule of privity.
However, the trial court rejected this defense, holding Buick Motor Co. responsible, and the appeal reached the highest court in New York. The factual circumstances clearly presented a question of whether the manufacturer’s duty of care extended beyond the dealer to the final consumer, a crucial consideration for any legal analysis in BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
III. Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court
The specific disagreement centered on the extent of the manufacturer’s duty. Could a manufacturer—even one who did not fabricate every component—be held liable to a remote purchaser for a defective product? The majority decision, penned by Judge Cardozo, analyzed the long-standing “inherently dangerous” exception to the privity rule. Precedent had carved out an exception for items that were, by their very nature, dangerous (like poisons or explosives). Cardozo, however, dramatically expanded this exception, distinguishing between items that are inherently dangerous and those rendered imminently dangerous due to negligent manufacturing.
Cardozo’s reasoning was pragmatic and prophetic. He argued that an automobile, if improperly produced, was certainly a “thing of danger.” Buick Motor Co. knew its vehicles would be used by retail purchasers without any intervening modification, making the ultimate consumer the foreseeable victim of a defect. Therefore, the court held that Buick, as the final assembler and producer, owed a direct duty to conduct tests and inspections to ensure the vehicle’s safety, notwithstanding the origin of the faulty component. This established the landmark principle: if a product is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, the manufacturer owes a duty of care to all foreseeable users.
The dissenting opinion, represented by Chief Judge Bartlett, staunchly maintained the traditional view, arguing that only the manufacturer of the faulty wheel component—not Buick Motor Co.—should be held liable. This dissent would have absolved Buick of responsibility, preserving the strict privity rule. Cardozo’s majority opinion prevailed, effectively modernizing the law of negligence to recognize the complex realities of industrial production and the expanding marketplace, a core principle for students studying the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2 material.
IV. Importance to Business Law: The Erosion of the Privity Barrier
The MacPherson ruling did not merely decide one case; it initiated a seismic shift in American tort law, replacing the outdated rule of privity with the modern concept of negligence. Before 1916, the legal philosophy was rooted in caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”). If MacPherson could not sue Buick, the only recourse was to sue the dealer, who would then have to sue Buick, creating a cumbersome and economically inefficient chain of litigation. Cardozo’s genius was recognizing that the rise of mass production had made this chain-of-contract approach unworkable. Manufacturers now dealt directly with the public interest, relying on consumers to use their products safely.
By holding that Buick owed a duty of care to MacPherson, the court established the foundational elements of modern product liability in negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The manufacturer now had a duty to foreseeable users; selling a known or discoverable defective product breached that duty; the defect caused the injury; and MacPherson suffered damages. This single case became the cornerstone for the development of strict product liability decades later, making it easier for consumers to recover for injuries caused by defective products.
The ruling placed the financial burden of defects directly on the entity best able to prevent them—the manufacturer. This reallocation of risk incentivized better design, improved manufacturing processes, and rigorous quality control. The impact of this decision extends through every facet of commercial litigation and remains central to the curriculum of BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
The
Note: Full answer to this question is available after purchase.
historical context is critical for understanding this change. Prior to automobiles, few mass-produced items carried such an inherent risk of danger to the user’s life and limb when defective. The automobile was the perfect modern vehicle—literally and figuratively—to demonstrate why the old common law rule had become obsolete. Cardozo’s expansion of the “imminently dangerous” doctrine to products intended for use by a wide, often anonymous, public ensured that the law kept pace with the industrial revolution and the emerging consumer society.
The legal principle it affirmed—that manufacturers are liable for all foreseeable injuries resulting from their negligence, irrespective of contractual relationships—is today a non-negotiable tenet of business law, which is why it is featured prominently in the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2 requirements.
V. Ethical and Business Implications: Corporate Responsibility in Supply Chains
The ethical implications of MacPherson are as profound as its legal ones, compelling businesses to adopt a proactive stance on consumer safety and corporate responsibility. The ruling establishes a core ethical obligation: the duty to protect the end-user from preventable harm.
As Zipursky and Goldberg (2016) note, this case underscores the manufacturer’s ethical obligation to prioritize consumer safety over profit margins or ease of production. Upholding Buick’s argument—that liability ceased because the dealer was the immediate purchaser—would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing corporations to systematically evade liability by structuring their distribution channels through intermediaries.
The dissenting view, if enforceable today, would lead to egregious consequences in an era defined by global, complex supply chains. Modern manufacturers seldom produce every single part of a final product. Instead, they rely on intricate networks of suppliers, sub-suppliers, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). If a company like a major technology firm could escape liability for a defect in a battery or a display panel by simply pointing to the third-party supplier, it would eliminate the incentive for rigorous oversight.
MacPherson effectively mandates stringent quality control measures not just over internal manufacturing but across the entire supply chain. This duty is non-delegable. A company cannot outsource its components and, simultaneously, outsource its legal and ethical responsibility for the finished product’s safety. This analysis is critical for successfully completing BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
The court’s decision aligns ethical conduct with long-term business strategy. Ethical businesses that embrace safety, robust testing, and transparent quality control not only comply with the law but also build trust, enhance brand loyalty, and secure long-term profitability. Conversely, attempts to evade liability through corporate structuring or negligence in supplier oversight invite devastating litigation, irreparable reputational damage, and regulatory penalties. The case is a perpetual reminder that the manufacturer is the final guardian of the product’s safety, a concept central to corporate governance and risk management, a key component of the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2 curriculum.
VI. Executive Briefing: Modern Relevance and Risk Mitigation
Briefing for Modern Manufacturers
To the executive leadership team, the principle of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is the most significant constraint and risk factor in your product development lifecycle. It dictates that your company is legally and ethically accountable for the safety of the final product, regardless of the complexity or globalization of your supply chain. The days of the “privity defense” are over.
Key Action Items for Risk Mitigation (Post-BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2):
- Mandatory Supplier Audits: Implement a system of mandatory, rigorous audits for all component suppliers. This goes beyond contract adherence; it requires actively inspecting the quality and safety processes of your vendors. As Cardozo ruled, a reasonable inspection must be performed.
- Robust In-House Testing: Establish comprehensive final product testing that anticipates every foreseeable use and misuse. This testing must specifically target components sourced from third parties, as the defect in MacPherson originated with a purchased wheel.
- Adherence to Regulatory Bodies: Your duty of care now includes compliance with modern regulatory bodies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the U.S. and equivalent international standards. Non-compliance is negligence per se.
- Product Recall Preparedness: The potential for a mass tort liability requires a proactive, efficient product recall strategy. This strategy must be tested and immediately executable to mitigate damages and reduce liability exposure should a widespread defect be discovered.
The ruling is no longer just about automobiles; its principle applies to everything from software that controls medical devices to globally sourced food products and technology hardware. A defective product, even a seemingly minor one, can be rendered “imminently dangerous” in a world of high-speed travel, complex machinery, and interconnected systems.
The financial and reputational stakes are enormous. Therefore, adhering to the duty of care established over a century ago is not merely a legal obligation but a paramount business imperative for every executive involved in product design, manufacturing, and distribution, which is why it is fundamental to understanding the material covered in the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
VII. Conclusion
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. remains the legal and ethical high-water mark for product liability law. It replaced the restrictive 19th-century notion of privity with the consumer-centric 20th-century concept of the manufacturer’s duty of care, fundamentally acknowledging the responsibility that comes with mass production. The ruling was a triumph of legal realism, adapting the common law to the industrial age and placing accountability where it could best prevent harm.
Its lessons—that manufacturers cannot delegate their duty to ensure consumer safety, must oversee their supply chains, and are ultimately liable to the end-user—are more relevant than ever in our globalized, component-driven economy. This enduring principle, first articulated in 1916, continues to protect consumers and define the parameters of ethical corporate conduct, serving as a critical touchstone for the learning objectives of the BUS-FPX3021 Assessment 2.
References
MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).
Zipursky, B. C., & Goldberg, J. C. P. (2016). The Myths of Macpherson. FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/896/
RELATED: BUS-FPX3021 ASSESSMENT 1 INSTRUCTIONS: CASE LAW ANALYSIS – CONTRACT LAW
Order This Paper
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.