Key takeaways
- MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (N.Y. 1916) held a manufacturer owes a duty of care to foreseeable users, even without a direct contract.
- California went further in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), adopting strict liability for defective products.
- Vehicle defect claims in California can include crashworthiness theories, evaluated under tests explained in Soule v. General Motors (1994).
Part 2 of 20 in our weekly series Car Accident Law Through History, by attorney Sean Keshishyan.
Today it seems obvious that a car company is responsible when a defect in its vehicle injures the person driving it. A century ago, that was not the law. A driver hurt by a badly made car usually could not sue the manufacturer at all, because he had bought the car from a dealer, not from the company that built it.
A 1916 decision from New York’s highest court, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., changed that. Written by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, it knocked down the old “privity” barrier and laid the foundation for modern product liability law, including the rules California applies to vehicle defect cases today.
A Broken Wheel on a 1910 Buick
Donald MacPherson, a stonecutter, owned a 1910 Buick Runabout. While he was driving it, one of the car’s wooden wheels collapsed; its spokes, made of defective wood, crumbled apart, and MacPherson was thrown out and injured.
Buick had not made the wheel. It bought the wheels from another manufacturer and put them on its cars. The evidence showed the defect could have been found with a reasonable inspection, but Buick had not done one. Buick’s main defense was simple: MacPherson had bought the car from a retail dealer, not from Buick, so Buick owed him nothing.
The Privity Barrier
That defense rested on a long-standing rule. Under the English case Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), a person injured by a defective product generally could sue only the party he had a contract with, a relationship lawyers call privity of contract. Because MacPherson’s contract was with the dealer, Buick argued that it could not be held liable.
American courts had already carved out an exception for products considered “inherently dangerous,” such as poisons. In Thomas v. Winchester (1852), New York held a seller liable to a distant buyer who was harmed by a falsely labeled bottle of poison. But an automobile was not a poison, and the question was whether the exception could stretch that far.
Cardozo’s Answer
In a decision issued on March 14, 1916, the New York Court of Appeals ruled for MacPherson. Cardozo reasoned that the category of dangerous things was not limited to poisons and explosives. If a product is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when it is made carelessly, and the maker knows it will be used by people other than the immediate buyer without new tests, then the maker owes those people a duty to use care in making it.
A car, Cardozo noted, was plainly built to be driven on public roads, and Buick knew it would be resold by dealers to members of the public. The danger of a defective wheel was foreseeable. The duty to make the car carefully therefore ran to the eventual owner, regardless of any contract. Buick also could not escape by pointing to its wheel supplier: as the finished-product manufacturer, it was responsible for reasonable inspection of the parts it used.
Chief Judge Willard Bartlett dissented, arguing that automobiles were not inherently dangerous under existing law and that the rule should not be expanded. His view did not prevail. The MacPherson approach was widely followed by other courts, and the case is regarded as a foundation of modern product liability law.
From Negligence to Strict Liability
MacPherson was a negligence case. MacPherson still had to show that Buick was careless. California later went further. In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963), the California Supreme Court held that a manufacturer is strictly liable when it places a product on the market knowing it will be used without inspection, and a defect in that product injures someone. Under strict liability, the injured person does not have to prove the manufacturer was careless, only that the product was defective and the defect caused the harm.
For cars, California courts have also recognized “crashworthiness” claims: a vehicle may be defective not because it caused the crash, but because its design made injuries worse once a crash happened. In Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994), the California Supreme Court explained how juries should evaluate design defect claims, using either an ordinary-consumer-expectations test or, in more technical cases, a weighing of the design’s risks and benefits.
What It Means for California Drivers Today
The practical legacy of MacPherson is that the chain of sale no longer protects a manufacturer. When a crash involves a possible vehicle defect, several parties may share responsibility:
- The vehicle manufacturer, for defects in design, manufacturing or warnings;
- Parts makers, such as suppliers of tires, airbags, brakes or other components; and
- Other parties in the chain of distribution, depending on the facts.
These claims can exist alongside an ordinary negligence claim against another driver. A single collision might involve a careless driver and a defective seatbelt or airbag that made injuries worse. Because product claims often depend on physical evidence, preserving the vehicle and its parts after a crash can matter a great deal.
Time limits still apply. In California, the general deadline for a personal injury lawsuit is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, and fault may be shared under the state’s pure comparative negligence rule. Product cases can also raise their own technical issues, including questions about federal safety standards.
More than a century after a Buick wheel collapsed in New York, the principle Cardozo announced remains simple: companies that put dangerous machines into the stream of commerce owe a duty of care to the people who will use them.
Injured in a car accident? The history in this series shows how California law came to protect people hurt by careless drivers and defective vehicles. If you or a family member has been injured, the Law Office of Sean Keshishyan in Glendale offers free consultations. Call (818) 246-6934 or send us a message.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every situation is different. Please speak with a qualified attorney about your specific circumstances.
