Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., Inc., 59 N.Y.2d 239 (1983)
A company that purchases the assets of a manufacturer may have an independent duty to warn the original customers of the manufacturer’s products of known dangers, even if it does not assume the predecessor’s liabilities; however, traditional successor liability does not apply unless specific conditions are met.
Summary
Otto Schumacher was injured by a shearing machine manufactured by Richards Shear and later acquired by Logemann Brothers. Schumacher sued Logemann, claiming successor liability and negligent failure to warn. The court held that Logemann was not liable under traditional successor liability principles, but could be liable for negligently failing to warn Schumacher’s employer, Wallace Steel, of the machine’s dangers, based on Logemann’s contacts with Wallace Steel and knowledge of the machine’s defects. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Logemann on the negligence claim.
Facts
Richards Shear sold a shearing machine to Wallace Steel in 1964. In 1968, Logemann acquired the assets of Richards Shear, including the right to manufacture and sell Richards Shear products. Logemann contacted Wallace Steel, notifying them of the acquisition and offering service for the machine. In 1978, Schumacher, an employee of Wallace Steel, was injured while operating the machine, which lacked a safety guard. Schumacher sued Logemann, arguing that the machine was defectively designed and that Logemann had a duty to warn of its dangers.
Procedural History
The trial court granted Logemann’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and Richards Shear’s cross-claim. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, granting summary judgment on the strict products liability claim but denying it on the negligence claim for failure to warn.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Logemann, as a successor corporation, can be held strictly liable for the torts of Richards Shear.
2. Whether Logemann had an independent duty to warn Wallace Steel of the dangers associated with the shearing machine.
Holding
1. No, because the circumstances do not meet the established exceptions for successor liability.
2. Yes, because Logemann’s relationship with Wallace Steel, coupled with Logemann’s knowledge or reason to know of the machine’s dangerous condition, could create a duty to warn.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied the general rule that a corporation that acquires the assets of another is not liable for the predecessor’s torts, citing Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. Canron, Inc., and outlined the exceptions: (1) express or implied assumption of liability, (2) consolidation or merger, (3) the purchaser is a mere continuation of the seller, or (4) the transaction is fraudulent. The court found none of these exceptions applicable.
The court declined to adopt the “product line” or “continuity of enterprise” theories of successor liability, as applied in other jurisdictions. It found the facts distinguishable from cases such as Ray v. Alad Corp. and Turner v. Bituminous Cas. Co., where such theories had been applied.
However, the court found that Logemann might be liable for negligently failing to warn Wallace Steel of the machine’s dangers. The court reasoned that a duty to warn may arise from a special relationship, often economic, where a party knows or has reason to know of a danger. It cited cases such as Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc. and Travis v. Harris Corp., which found a potential duty to warn based on the successor corporation’s relationship with the predecessor’s customers and the economic benefit derived. The court considered Logemann’s contacts with Wallace Steel, including offering service and expertise, as sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on the negligence claim.
The court emphasized that Logemann’s liability, if any, arises from this relationship with Wallace Steel, not from successor liability or acting as a repairman. The court also found that there was a jury question as to whether Logemann knew or had reason to know of the machine’s defect, stating that “there is evidence on the record to indicate that this defect was open and notorious based on prevailing industry standards.” The court also noted that the open and obvious nature of the defect does not negate the duty to warn, citing Micallef v. Miehle Co.