Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.
432 N.Y.S.2d 879, 412 N.E.2d 934, 51 N.Y.2d 152 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law do not bar a common-law tort action against an employer for an employee's injuries where the employer's liability stems solely from its independent assumption, through corporate merger, of the obligations and liabilities of a third-party manufacturer/designer whose defective product caused the injury, provided the original tort-feasor never had an employment relationship with the injured employee.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's decedent, an employee of USM Corporation, was killed on October 21, 1976, when a 4,600-pound "ram" from a vertical boring mill broke loose and struck him.
- The accident was allegedly caused by defects in the manufacture and design of the vertical boring mill, a metal "lifting bar," and the "ram."
- The vertical boring mill was designed decades ago and manufactured in the early 1950s by Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation and Farrel-Birmingham Company, with Farrel-Birmingham installing it in 1955 at the plant now operated by USM.
- In 1951, Farrel-Birmingham acquired a controlling interest in Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, subsequently dissolving Consolidated in 1954 and assuming its assets and liabilities.
- In 1963, Farrel-Birmingham Company changed its name to Farrel Corporation.
- Farrel Corporation finally merged into USM Corporation, the decedent’s employer, in 1968, eight years before the fatal accident.
- As a result of this 1968 merger, USM Corporation assumed all the liabilities and obligations of Farrel Corporation, including those Farrel had inherited from Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation.
Procedural Posture:
- Decedent's widow applied for and received workers' compensation benefits after her husband's death.
- She subsequently commenced a common-law tort action against USM Corporation (the employer), Emhart Corporation (USM's parent), and the predecessor corporations: Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation, Farrel-Birmingham Company, and Farrel Corporation.
- All five corporate defendants moved for summary judgment, with USM Corporation arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided an exclusive remedy.
- Special Term (the trial court) granted summary judgment for USM Corporation, dismissing the causes of action against it, concluding that § 11 constituted an absolute bar.
- The plaintiff appealed Special Term's decision to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the dismissal of causes of action against USM Corporation.
- Plaintiff then sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the highest court in the state).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law prevent a common-law tort action against an employer when the employer's liability arises solely from its independent assumption, through corporate merger, of the obligations and liabilities of a third-party manufacturer/designer whose defective product caused the employee's injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Gabrielli, J.
No, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law do not bar a common-law tort action against USM Corporation under these specific circumstances. The court reaffirms its rejection of the 'dual capacity' doctrine, which attempts to hold an employer liable in a secondary role (e.g., as a property owner or manufacturer of equipment) for duties that are intrinsically linked to the employer-employee relationship and the provision of a safe workplace. However, the present claim against USM stands on different footing. USM's alleged liability arises from its independent assumption, through corporate merger, of the liabilities of third-party tort-feasors (Consolidated Machine Tool Corporation and Farrel-Birmingham Company) who designed and manufactured the defective equipment. These predecessor corporations never had an employer-employee relationship with the decedent and thus would not have been immune from a common-law tort action under the Workers' Compensation Law. Since USM 'stands in the shoes' of these non-employer tort-feasors, and the obligation upon which it is being sued arose from an independent business transaction (the merger) rather than the direct employment relationship, USM cannot invoke workers' compensation immunity for these inherited liabilities. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against Emhart Corporation (USM's parent) because liability cannot be predicated solely on ownership; plaintiff failed to show direct intervention by Emhart in USM's management. Claims against the original defunct corporations were properly dismissed as they were completely absorbed by USM.
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law should bar the common-law tort action against USM Corporation. The dissent agrees that the 'dual capacity' doctrine is inapplicable, particularly when the equipment was manufactured solely for the employer's own use and not for public distribution. However, the majority errs by selectively applying Business Corporation Law § 906. While § 906(b)(3) states the surviving corporation assumes liabilities, § 906(b)(1) also dictates that it acquires 'all the rights, privileges, immunities, powers and purposes of each of the constituent corporations.' Farrel, USM's predecessor, would have been immune from common-law liability to an employee for injuries caused by equipment it manufactured for its own use, due to the Workers' Compensation Law. Since USM, as the surviving corporation, inherited Farrel's immunities through the merger, USM should likewise be immune from suit by its own employee for these same liabilities. It is immaterial that the decedent never worked for Farrel. The dissent argues that the majority's reasoning creates an inconsistent and impractical rule, forcing acquiring corporations to obtain general liability insurance on all equipment manufactured by predecessors, contrary to the legislative intent of both the Business Corporation Law and the Workers' Compensation Law.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical exception to the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity rule, clarifying that an employer's immunity does not extend to liabilities it assumes through corporate merger from a third-party tort-feasor who never had an employment relationship with the injured worker. The decision carefully distinguishes this scenario from the rejected 'dual capacity' doctrine, emphasizing that the nature of the obligation (direct employment vs. inherited third-party liability) is paramount. This ruling has significant implications for corporate mergers and acquisitions, requiring companies to conduct thorough due diligence regarding the product liability history of acquired entities, as these inherited liabilities can expose the acquiring employer to common-law suits from its own employees, even if workers' compensation benefits are available. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the protective aims of workers' compensation with broader principles of corporate successor liability.
