Talk:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

Untitled

Can this sentence be rewritten?

"According to Professors John Goldberg of Vanderbilt University Law School and Benjamin Zipursky of Fordham Law,[2] by holding that the defendant manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate purchaser despite the absence of privity - it didn't remove duty of care from the law of torts but re-affirmed duty."

It doesn't really make much sense, at least in the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.143 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The new version has an NPOV problem: why are we talking about what Goldberg/Zipursky think, but not what Prosser thinks? THF (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's because info comes from "Tort LAW responsibilities and redress eds Goldberg, Sebok, Zipursky." Perhaps conflict could be resolved by citing legal reasoning, which is widely accepted, but omitting names except for citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.176.20 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the anon critic on 12 June 2009. The passage doesn't make much sense, because most lawyers are already taught to read MacPherson as broadening the duty of care, not removing it. The passage looks like it was written by a graduate of what American lawyers call a third-tier toilet law school. A graduate of a first-tier school would have drafted a proper lead-in to give the passage some context. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but you don't have to be such a snob. Lots of people attend lots of universities for all sorts of reasons, and it's wrong to say they study in toilets. Maybe you could just edit the encyclopedia? Wikidea 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)