100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 88 - 90 out of 102 pages.
In the years following this decision > the court of Appeals refined and extendedthe concept of imminently dangerous products: Cours: Winterbottom case: oP brought suit with negligenceoCourt = no contract between P and D thus > no recovery under negligence oIdea that torts is bowing before contracts oWhy saying that? Why does it sound strange? Because line is not so hard to draw > theforeseeability stop at some point. Thomas case:oLiable when products is dangerous to life of others > remind strict liability. oCreate an exception to Winterbottom but does not overrule it. •MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co:Rule = A manufacturer of articles that are not inherently dangerous but that may become dangerouswhen improperly constructed owes a duty of care to anyone beyond the purchaser who mightforeseeablyuse the articles, when it is reasonable to expect no further tests will be performed.Buick Motor Co. (Buick) (defendant) is an automobile manufacturer. Buick sold an automobile to aretailer, who sold it to MacPherson (plaintiff). The automobile contained a defective wheel which hadbeen manufactured by another company. The defect was unknown; however, Buick could havediscovered the defect through a reasonable inspection. The defective wheel caused theautomobile to collapse while MacPherson was driving, and he was injured. MacPherson brought suitagainst Buick for negligence. -It was foreseeable that once an automobile was sold to the retailer, it would be purchased bysomeone else such as MacPherson. Thus, Buick owed MacPherson a duty of care toensure the safety of the automobile and is liable for negligence for failing to meetthat duty. -However, there must be knowledge by the manufacturer of a danger which may result fromnegligent manufacturing, and the danger must not only be possible but probable. If thenegligent manufacturing occurs by a third party responsible for making one aspect of a finishedproduct, the final manufacturer will only be liable for negligence if the defect could have beendiscovered through reasonable inspection, and the final manufacturer fails its own duty ofinspection. 88
-Buick serves as a final manufacturer of automobiles comprised of various parts made by othermanufacturers. The defective wheel that caused injury to MacPherson was made by a thirdparty, but was incorporated into one of Buick’s automobiles. -Due to the nature of automobiles and the speed at which they travel, Buick should have knownthat a defective wheel could cause serious injury to the user of the automobile. -Additionally, when Buick sold the automobile to a retailer, it was foreseeable that theautomobile would be sold again to a purchaser such as MacPherson.-Thus, the fact that injury could certainly be caused by a defective wheel gave rise toa duty by Buick to inspect its final products. Moreover, because MacPherson as apurchaser was a foreseeable user of Buick’s automobiles, Buick owed a duty of careto MacPherson personally. Buick failed this duty by not performing a reasonable inspectionof its automobiles, and is liable to MacPherson for negligence.