Logourl black

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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Huyett, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.