BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2 Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing

BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2 Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing

Student Name

Capella University

BUS-FPX3021 Fundamentals of Business Law

Prof. Name

Date

Parties:

Donald C. MacPherson and Buick Motor Company

Court and Date Decided:

New York Court of Appeals (Decided March 14, 1916)

Background Facts:

MacPherson initiated a lawsuit against Buick Motor Co. concerning injuries sustained from a collapsed wheel of a 1909 Buick Runabout he purchased from a dealer who obtained the vehicle from Buick Motor Co. Although the wheel was not directly manufactured by Buick Motor Co., the court found that a reasonable inspection by the company would have uncovered its defects. Buick Motor Co. contended that the dealer bore liability, but the court ruled that as a manufacturer, Buick Motor Co. carried a heightened duty to ensure the safety of its final product.

Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court:

The majority opinion, led by Judge Cardozo, deliberated on whether Buick Motor Co. owed a duty of care extending beyond the immediate purchaser. By drawing on legal precedent, the court distinguished between inherently dangerous items and those made imminently dangerous due to negligent manufacturing. It concluded that Buick Motor Co. was aware of the significant threat posed by improperly produced vehicles and therefore had an obligation to conduct tests to guarantee safety. Conversely, the dissenting opinion, articulated by Chief Judge Bartlett, advocated for holding the manufacturer of the faulty wheel accountable, thereby absolving Buick Motor Co. of responsibility.

Conclusion – Importance to Business Law and Ethical Implications:

Despite originating in 1916, this ruling retains relevance in understanding corporate liability. It establishes that companies bear responsibility for products sold to consumers, irrespective of component sourcing. This underscores the critical need for rigorous quality control measures. According to Zipursky and Goldberg (2016), companies have an ethical duty to prioritize consumer safety. Upholding the defendant’s argument would have established a precedent relieving manufacturers of liability post-sale, contravening ethical business practices. Enforcing the dissenting opinion today could result in detrimental consequences, enabling corporations to evade liability through corporate restructuring. However, ethical conduct not only aligns with societal values but also enhances long-term profitability.

References:

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co. 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

Zipursky, B. C., & Goldberg, J. C. P. (2016). The Myths of Macpherson. FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/896/

BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2 Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing