Article
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
The MacPherson-Henningsen Puzzle
-
Victor Goldberg
Published/Copyright:
September 5, 2018
Abstract
In the landmark case of MacPherson v. Buick, an automobilecompany was held liable for negligence notwithstanding a lack of privity withthe injured driver. Four decades later, in Henningsenv. Bloomfield Motors, the court held unconscionable the standard automobilecompany warranty which limited its responsibility to repair and replacement,even in a case involving physical injury. This suggests a puzzle: if it were soeasy for firms to contract out of liability, did MacPherson accomplish anything?
Published Online: 2018-09-05
Published in Print: 2018-09-25
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
You are currently not able to access this content.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Torts Panel Papers
- Foreword: The Role of History in Tort Theory
- A Lost Search for a Generic Tort Action Protecting “Peace of Mind”
- History, Theory, and Tort: Four Theses
- Will Tort Law Have Its #Me Too Moment?
- Research Articles
- Technological Triggers to Tort Revolutions: Steam Locomotives, Autonomous Vehicles, and Accident Compensation
- The MacPherson-Henningsen Puzzle
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Torts Panel Papers
- Foreword: The Role of History in Tort Theory
- A Lost Search for a Generic Tort Action Protecting “Peace of Mind”
- History, Theory, and Tort: Four Theses
- Will Tort Law Have Its #Me Too Moment?
- Research Articles
- Technological Triggers to Tort Revolutions: Steam Locomotives, Autonomous Vehicles, and Accident Compensation
- The MacPherson-Henningsen Puzzle
