| Venue: | NY Ct. App. |
| Facts: | Buick makes cars. This one particular car had a wooden wheel that was made by another firm (Buick bought wheels from this firm and stuck them onto their cars). The wood broke, and there was a smash-up. Buick didn't know of the defect, nor did they willfully conceal it, and also they didn't sell it to the plaintiff-- there was a dealer in the middle. |
| Posture: | Judgment for the plaintiff at trial, affirmed on appeal. |
| Issue: | Did the defendant owe a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the dealer who purchased it? If so, then there was negligence. |
| Holding: | Yes. Affirmed. (Cardozo) |
| Rule: | A manufacturer who makes potentially dangerous things owes the end-users a duty of care that they not be made negligently. |
| Reasoning: | It makes no sense for the defendant to claim that the only duty
owed was to the dealer: the dealer was obviously never going
to be the user of the car. At the same time, it's possible
to use anything in a dangerous manner. In order to be liable,
the manufacturer must know that there is probably danger, and
that the danger will be shared by people other than the buyer.
In the end, though manufacturers are responsible for their finished products. |
| Dicta: | The duty to safeguard life and limb when the consequences of negligence may be foreseen is grounded in the law. Also, precedents of this nature evlve to fit the needs of life in a developing civilization. |