Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.

86 N.J. 332, 431 A.2d 811 (1981)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.

New Jersey Supreme Court
86 N.J. 332, 431 A.2d 811 (1981)

KS

Facts

In the 1940s, the Johnson Machine and Press Company (Johnson) manufactured power presses. In 1956, Bontrager Construction Company (Bontrager) acquired all the assets and one share of Johnson. Bontrager then began manufacturing the Johnson press line of products. In 1962, pursuant to a purchase agreement, Amsted Industries, Inc. (Amsted) (defendant) acquired all the assets of Bontrager, including the single share of Johnson stock and the Johnson assets, including the manufacturing plant that had manufactured the Johnson press line under both Johnson and Bontrager ownership. Bontrager distributed the proceeds from the sale to shareholders, and Bontrager was dissolved. As part of the purchase agreement, Amsted disavowed liability for any obligation not expressly named in the purchase agreement. Amsted or an Amsted subsidiary continued to manufacture Johnson power-press machinery. Amsted eventually dissolved Johnson. In 1975, Efrain Ramirez (plaintiff) was injured while using an allegedly defective Johnson Model 5 power press. The power press was manufactured by Johnson in 1948 or 1949. Ramirez filed suit against Amsted as a successor corporation, claiming negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability for defective design and manufacturing. Amsted moved for summary judgment, arguing that its purchase of the Johnson assets did not include an assumption of liability for damages arising from the machinery Johnson had manufactured. The trial court granted Amsted’s summary-judgment motion, explaining that Amsted, as a successor corporation, did not assume liability for machinery manufactured by Johnson, because the Johnson assets had been purchased for cash and the purchase agreement limited the purchaser’s liability. Ramirez appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a successor corporation was liable for personal injuries arising out of equipment manufactured by a selling corporation if the business of the selling corporation continued in an unchanged manner. Amsted appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 824,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 824,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership