David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
58 F.R.D. 444 (E.D. Pa. 1973)
Facts
David (plaintiff) was injured by a shredding machine. He brought suit against Crompton & Knowles Corp. (Crompton) (defendant). David’s complaint alleged that Crompton designed, manufactured, and sold the machine in question to Crown Products Corporation (Crown), which was David’s employer. In its answer to the complaint, Crompton stated that it did not have sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation. Subsequently, Crompton moved to amend that answer and deny that it designed, manufactured, and sold the shredding machine. Crompton based its motion to amend on information it purportedly became aware of that indicated that the machine in question was designed, manufactured, and sold by James Hunter Corporation (Hunter) prior to Crompton’s purchase of Hunter. Crompton claimed that it did not assume liabilities for the negligent design until after it acquired Hunter and therefore was not liable for the shredding machine.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huyett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
