MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. [1916]
217 N.Y. 382 (1916) · New York Court of Appeals · New York, United States
Issue
Could the manufacturer owe a duty without contractual privity?
Held
Yes. Manufacturers owe duties for products likely to be dangerous if negligently made.
Exam use
Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.
Summary
Major step toward modern products liability.
Facts
Issue
Could the manufacturer owe a duty without contractual privity?
Held
Yes. Manufacturers owe duties for products likely to be dangerous if negligently made.
Ratio Decidendi
Manufacturers can owe negligence duties to foreseeable users of dangerous products.
Reasoning
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (217 N.Y. 382 (1916)) strengthens a tort law answer because the case reflects the principle that Manufacturers can owe negligence duties to foreseeable users of dangerous products. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Could the manufacturer owe a duty without contractual privity? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.