Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co.
464 N.Y.S.2d 437, 59 N.Y.2d 239, 451 N.E.2d 195 (1983)
Rule of Law:
While a corporation acquiring the assets of another is generally not liable for the predecessor's torts under traditional successor liability exceptions, it may incur an independent common-law duty to warn previous purchasers of the predecessor's potentially dangerous products if a special relationship exists due to contacts, knowledge of defects, and potential economic advantage.
Facts:
- Richards Shear Company, Inc. (Richards Shear) manufactured and sold a model 300-ton hydraulic shearing machine.
- In January 1964, Wallace Steel and Supply Company (Wallace Steel), Otto F. Schumacher's employer, purchased this machine from Richards Shear.
- In January 1968, Richards Shear entered into a 'License and Sales Agreement' with Logemann Brothers Company, Inc. (Logemann), granting Logemann the exclusive right to manufacture and sell Richards Shear products, inventory, and to use the 'Richards' trade name, effectively selling substantially all of Richards Shear's assets, after which Richards Shear discontinued its business.
- In February 1968, Logemann contacted Wallace Steel, notifying it of the acquisition of the Richards Shear product line.
- In July 1968, Logemann sent a former Richards Shear serviceman to Wallace Steel to service and check its machine.
- In April 1976, Logemann again contacted Wallace Steel, soliciting business for the shear machine and notifying it of the acquisition of another former Richards Shear serviceman.
- Logemann also supplied Wallace Steel with replacement parts for the machine at various times.
- On April 17, 1978, Otto F. Schumacher, an employee of Wallace Steel, was blinded in one eye when struck by a piece of metal ejected by the hydraulic shearing machine he was operating.
- Schumacher contended the machine was defective in design and manufacture because it lacked a safety guard to deflect ejected metal.
Procedural Posture:
- Otto F. Schumacher and his wife sued Richards Shear Company, Inc., and Logemann Brothers Company, Inc., in a trial court (referred to as Special Term), seeking compensatory and derivative damages for personal injury on theories of strict products liability and negligence.
- Richards Shear interposed a cross claim against Logemann.
- Logemann moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the cross claim against it.
- Special Term granted Logemann's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both the strict products liability and negligence claims.
- Schumacher appealed Special Term's decision to the intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division), which affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Logemann, with two judges dissenting.
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 a corporation that acquires the assets of another manufacturer owe an independent common-law duty to warn previous purchasers of a predecessor's potentially dangerous machinery, even if the acquiring corporation is not liable as a successor under traditional exceptions to successor liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No, Logemann is not liable for Richards Shear's tortious conduct under traditional successor liability rules, but yes, it may be liable for its own negligent failure to warn. The court affirmed the general rule that a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the predecessor's torts, identifying the four established exceptions: (1) express or implied assumption of liability, (2) consolidation or merger, (3) mere continuation (where the predecessor is extinguished), or (4) a fraudulent transaction to escape obligations. The court found no evidence to support liability under any of these exceptions, specifically noting that Richards Shear survived as a distinct entity, precluding the 'mere continuation' theory. Furthermore, the court declined to adopt the 'product line' or 'continuity of enterprise' theories, finding them factually distinguishable in this case (e.g., no continuity of management, personnel, or physical location, and Richards Shear did not dissolve). However, the court recognized that Logemann may be independently answerable to the plaintiffs based on a common-law negligence theory for failure to warn. This duty arises from a 'special relationship,' frequently economic, which can be created by the acquiring corporation's contacts with the predecessor's customers, its knowledge (or reason to know) of known dangers, and potential economic advantage. Factors considered include succession to service contracts, service of the machine, and knowledge of defects and the machine's owner. The court found sufficient evidence of contacts between Logemann and Wallace Steel (notification of acquisition, solicitation of business, supplying parts, a service call, and holding itself out as having expertise) to create a factual issue for a jury on whether Logemann had such a duty to warn. The court also rejected the Appellate Division's reliance on the passage of time as dispositive and dismissed the application of the latent/patent defect distinction for the duty to warn, citing Micallef v Miehle Co.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No, Logemann should not be held liable under either successor liability or the newly fashioned independent duty to warn. Justice Jasen concurred with the majority that none of the traditional exceptions to successor corporate liability, nor the 'continuity of enterprise' or 'product line' theories, applied to impose liability on Logemann for Richards Shear's torts. However, he disagreed with the imposition of an independent duty to warn based on a 'special relationship.' Justice Jasen argued that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause, a necessary element of a negligence claim, given that the alleged defect (absence of a safety guard) was 'open and notorious' and would have been apparent to Wallace Steel after over a decade of operation, rendering a warning ineffective. He found Logemann's contacts with Wallace Steel (one service call unrelated to the cutting device, solicitation letters) too limited to establish the 'significant economic relationship' required for a special duty. He expressed concern that imposing a duty to warn of design defects on a servicing company would create a greater burden than on the original manufacturer, requiring the servicer to monitor all technical developments in an industry. Furthermore, he contended that the common-law duty to warn applied only to hidden dangers, and the majority's reliance on Micallef v Miehle Co. (which eliminated the latent/patent distinction for design defects) was misplaced in a duty to warn context.
Dissenting - Jones, J.
No, the dismissal of the second cause of action alleging Logemann's negligent failure to warn of design defects was proper. Justice Jones agreed with the majority that the strict products liability claim was properly dismissed. He accepted the proposition that a servicer of machinery manufactured by another could be liable for failure to warn of design defects if a 'special relationship' existed and injuries were foreseeable. However, he concluded that the evidence presented in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to warrant submission of the factual questions to a jury. He cited the limited nature of Logemann's contacts: advertising successorship, two solicitation letters, one service call six months after the acquisition (for the power unit, not the cutting device), and supplying 'undescribed replacement parts.' Justice Jones argued that while Logemann held itself out as having expertise, this, coupled with a single, limited service order nearly a decade before the accident, was not substantial enough to create the required 'servicing relationship of sufficient substance.' He expressed concern that a lower standard would implicitly create a new category of successor liability, disguised as negligence, by broadly exposing any successor commercial sponsor who merely exploits goodwill and accepts a single service order. He also noted the materiality of proximate causation and the nearly 10-year lapse between service and accident.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant in New York for delineating the boundaries of successor corporate liability and establishing the potential for an independent common-law duty to warn. While reaffirming traditional, narrow exceptions for successor liability and rejecting broader theories like 'product line' or 'continuity of enterprise,' the court created a new avenue for injured plaintiffs to seek recourse from asset purchasers. The decision highlights that even without being deemed a successor corporation for direct tort liability, an acquiring company can incur its own duty to warn through post-acquisition interactions with the predecessor's customer base, emphasizing the importance of diligence regarding inherited product lines. This ruling requires a granular, fact-intensive inquiry into the nature and extent of the acquiring company's relationship with former customers and its knowledge of product risks, potentially increasing the due diligence burden on companies acquiring assets in industries with long product life cycles.
