ne wheel on an automobile manufactured by Buick Motor Company was defectively made. Buick would have discovered the defective condition if it had made a reasonable inspection of the wheel. Buick sold the car to an automobile dealer who in turn sold it

to MacPherson. MacPherson was injured when the wheel collapsed. MacPherson sued Buick for negligent failure to inspect the wheel. Buick's main defense was that it had not dealt directly with MacPherson and thus owed him no duty. The general rule gov- erning such suits at the time of this action was that a buyer could not sue a manufacturer for negligence unless there was a contract between the buyer and the manufacturer. However, there had been a previous case, Thomas v. Winchester, where a manufacturer falsely labeled a poison that was sold to a druggist, who in turn sold it to a customer. The customer was able to recover against the manufacturer. Further, in Devlin v. Smith, a contractor was held liable when he improperly built a scaffold for a painter and the painter's employees were injured when it collapsed. On the basis of this information, "p*plain how the court could permit MacPherson to recover from Buick.