Abstract
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company won fame for taking down a privity barrier that stood between consumers and manufacturers of products that cause injury. Privity had offered liability-shelter to remote vendors; MacPherson destroyed that shelter when it held that nonprivy vendees have an entitlement to care and vigilance. In this relation of mutually constituted security and danger, privity and MacPherson are each the other’s reciprocal. This article, written to celebrate the centenary of a great decision, explores the reciprocity path that MacPherson helped to build by considering instances of law-mandated care and vigilance that came after it. Broadly worded obligations as provisioned in MacPherson function to support, or at least are consistent with, entitlements and shelters that business entities now receive from American consumers.
Acknowledgments
Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I thank Dylan Weeks and Katie Holmes for research assistance; Loren Pani for cite-checking (errors remain my own); Michael Cahill and Christopher Beauchamp for insights into my thesis; Tony Sebok for wise stewardship of this Symposium; and John Goldberg and Ben Zipursky, MacPherson mentors to many, whose scholarship deepened my interest in this case. Brooklyn Law School provided research support.
©2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Editor’s Introduction to the Symposium “MacPherson at 100: Reflections On Its Influence”
- The Reciprocal of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
- Ives and MacPherson: Judicial Process in the Regulatory State
- Is MacPherson A Legacy of Civilian Views?
- The Myths of MacPherson
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Editor’s Introduction to the Symposium “MacPherson at 100: Reflections On Its Influence”
- The Reciprocal of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
- Ives and MacPherson: Judicial Process in the Regulatory State
- Is MacPherson A Legacy of Civilian Views?
- The Myths of MacPherson