Defendant Buick Motor Company manufactured an automobile and sold it to a retail dealer, who then sold it to the plaintiff. One of the car's wheels, purchased by Buick from another manufacturer, was defective when the car left Buick's hands, and the wheel collapsed while plaintiff was carefully driving about eight miles per hour. There was evidence that the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, although Buick did not itself test the wheel and relied on the wheel maker. Plaintiff was not in contractual privity with Buick.
Issue
Does a manufacturer of an automobile owe a duty of care in negligence to a remote purchaser not in privity when the car, if negligently made with a defective wheel, is reasonably certain to endanger life and limb and the defect could have been discovered by reasonable inspection?
Rule
If the nature of a product is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, the manufacturer owes a duty of care beyond the immediate purchaser. That duty arises when the manufacturer knows the product will be used by persons other than the buyer without new tests, and it includes a duty to make a reasonable inspection for defects discoverable by ordinary care.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Cleveland, Orion Ridge Motors assembles motorcycles and sells them to local dealerships, knowing the dealerships will resell them to ordinary riders without conducting any mechanical testing. One motorcycle contains a steering bracket supplied by another company; the bracket had a crack that would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, and Nora Kim is injured after buying the motorcycle from a dealer when the bracket fails during normal riding.
If Nora sues Orion Ridge Motors for negligence, what is the strongest argument that Orion owed her a duty?
Explanation. The majority rule is that privity is not required when the manufacturer places into circulation a product that, if negligently made, is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril, and the manufacturer knows it will be used by persons other than the immediate buyer without new tests. A motorcycle used by ordinary consumers fits that reasoning if a discoverable defect makes it dangerous in normal operation. The duty is one of reasonable care, not dependent on warranty or on the product being inherently dangerous at all times.