▁there ▁is ▁no ▁contract ▁and ▁that ▁this ▁duty ▁arose ▁if ▁there ▁was ▁proxim ity ▁between ▁the ▁parties , ▁was ▁also ▁un success ful . ▁ ▁Two ▁cases ▁from ▁the ▁New ▁York ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als , ▁Thomas ▁v . ▁Win chester ▁and ▁Mac Ph erson ▁v . ▁Bu ick ▁Motor ▁Co ., ▁were ▁also ▁influ ential ▁in ▁the ▁formation ▁of ▁the ▁neighbour ▁principle . ▁In ▁Thomas , ▁Thomas ▁had ▁purchased ▁and ▁admin ister ed ▁bell ad onna ▁to ▁his ▁wife ▁after ▁it ▁was ▁mis label led ▁by ▁Win chester , ▁the ▁deal er , ▁although ▁not ▁the ▁s eller , ▁of ▁the ▁treatment ▁as ▁extract ▁of ▁d and el ion . ▁Thomas ' ▁wife ▁became ▁seriously ▁ill ▁as ▁a ▁consequence ▁and ▁Thomas ▁successfully ▁claimed ▁in ▁neg lig ence ; ▁Win chester ' s ▁behaviour ▁had ▁created ▁an ▁im min ent ▁danger ▁which ▁just ified ▁a ▁finding ▁of ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care . ▁ ▁This ▁principle ▁was ▁re lied ▁on ▁in ▁Mac Ph erson , ▁in ▁which ▁a ▁car ▁wheel ▁col lapsed , ▁inj uring ▁Mac Ph erson . ▁The ▁manufact urer ▁was ▁su ed ▁in ▁neg lig ence ▁and ▁the ▁court ▁held ▁that ▁manufact ur ers ▁could ▁o we ▁their ▁ult imate ▁consum ers ▁a ▁duty ▁of ▁care ▁in ▁limited ▁circumstances . ▁ ▁" If ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁a ▁thing ▁is ▁such ▁that ▁it ▁is ▁reason ably ▁certain ▁to ▁place ▁life ▁and ▁lim b ▁in ▁per il ▁when ▁neg lig ently ▁made , ▁it ▁is ▁then ▁a ▁thing ▁of ▁danger . ▁Its