Case v. Paul Troester Maschinenfabrik
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
139 F. Supp. 2d 428 (2001)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The German partnerships Troester Maschinenbau GmbH & Co. (TMG) and Paul Troester Maschinenfabrik (PTM) (defendant) operated under a cooperation agreement. TMG and PTM shared many of the same partners and managers, marketed their products under the Troester trade name, and used the same marketing materials. TMG went out of business and sold its assets to PTM in 1994. PTM took over TMG’s line of so-called calendar machines. Although PTM’s calendar machines had a different design from those made by TMG, TMG’s former plant manager supervised PTM’s calendar-machine production, and PTM sold its machines to many of TMG’s former customers. In 1995, PTM established an American sales subsidiary, Troester Machinery, Ltd. (TML) (defendant). PTM and TML shared none of the same officers or managers. George Case (plaintiff), who sustained injuries while using a TMG calendar machine manufactured in 1982, filed a federal-court suit against both PTM and TML for negligence. PTM and TML moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Larimer, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
