Dawejko v. Jorgensen Steel Co., 290 Pa. Super. 15

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a successor corporation may be strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product manufactured by its predecessor under the product-line exception to successor liability. The court adopted the formulation from Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc., and affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict against American Chain and Cable Company and its Mansaver division.

Holdings

1. Pennsylvania adopts the product-line exception: when one corporation acquires all or substantially all of another corporation's manufacturing assets and undertakes essentially the same manufacturing operation, the purchasing corporation may be strictly liable for injuries caused by defects in products from the same product line, including products manufactured and distributed by the predecessor.
2. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find ACCO liable under the product-line exception because ACCO acquired Mansaver's trademark and goodwill, Mansaver ceased operations, and the evidence supported a finding that ACCO continued the same business and manufactured and sold the same machine under the same name.
3. The lower court applied an erroneous standard by treating the judgment-n.o.v. motion as though it were a summary-judgment motion, but the error was harmless because the judgment-n.o.v. motion was correctly denied on the merits. The lower court also should not have dismissed the motion solely because the trial notes had not been transcribed, but that error was likewise harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pennsylvania should adopt a product-line exception to the general rule that a corporation acquiring another corporation's assets does not assume the predecessor's liabilities.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed under the judgment-n.o.v. standard, supported imposing strict products liability on ACCO as Mansaver's successor.
3. Whether the lower court's erroneous treatment of the judgment-n.o.v. motion as analogous to a summary-judgment motion required reversal.
4. Whether failure to transcribe the trial notes required dismissal of the judgment-n.o.v. motion.

Disposition

affirmed