Final answer:
In the case of Macpherson vs. Buick, the plaintiff won without needing privity of contract or relying on caveat emptor. The ruling established manufacturer's direct duty of care towards consumers, highlighting a significant change in product liability and consumer protection law.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the landmark case of Macpherson vs. Buick, the plaintiff Donald C. Macpherson did not need privity of contract with the manufacturer, nor was the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) applicable. Instead, the New York Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer, Buick Motor Company, was responsible for the finished product's safety regardless of privity of contract between the manufacturer and the injured party. The decision established the precedent that a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer if it is reasonably foreseeable that the product could cause harm if negligently made. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff by recognizing that manufacturers have a direct duty to consumers, which represented a major shift in the law regarding consumer protection and product liability.