How did the 1916 case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. lead to the elimination of the privity requirement?
What will be an ideal response?
Courts had already begun to eliminate the privity requirement, especially in cases of defective food. It was essentially abolished in the 1916 case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. In MacPherson, the court held the remote manufacturer of an automobile with a defective wheel liable to the plaintiff when the wheel broke and the plaintiff was injured. Judge Cardozo stated that the presence of a sale does not control the duty; if the elements of a product are such that it is harmful to individuals if negligently made, and if the manufacturer knows that the product will be used by other than the purchaser, then "irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing is under a duty to make it carefully." The holding in the MacPherson case, which was quickly followed by similar holdings in other states, eliminated the privity requirement, thereby allowing a negligent manufacturer to be held responsible for a defective product that caused injuries to someone with whom the defendant manufacturer had no contract.
You might also like to view...
The Accounts Receivable account is a permanent account
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which one of the following is not a stated advantage of using a committee to undertake the job evaluation process within an organization?
A. Results tend to be more objective. B. Broad-based representation tends to increase the program's acceptability. C. Results tend to be more accurate. D. Results can be made available more quickly.