What is the current state of the law on the doctrine of privity in the context of personal injury cases?

By the time 90 years had passed, however, this court could note in Ultramares that the "assault upon the citadel of privity is proceeding in these days apace." (255 N.Y., at p. 180, 174 N.E. 441.) We acknowledged that inroads had been made, for example, where third-party beneficiaries or dangerous instrumentalities were involved. (Id., at p. 181, 174 N.E. 441.) Indeed, we referred to this court's holding in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 where it was decided that the manufacturer of a defective chattel--there an automobile--may be liable in negligence for the resulting injuries sustained by a user regardless of the absence of privity--a belated rejection of the doctrine of privity as applied to the facts in Winterbottom. Nevertheless, regarding an accountant's liability to unknown parties with whom he had not contracted, the considerations were deemed sufficiently dissimilar to justify different treatment.