Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co.
New York Court of Appeals
451 N.E.2d 195 (1983)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 1964 Wallace Steel and Supply Company (Wallace) purchased a shearing machine from Richards Shear Company (defendant). In 1968 Logemann Brothers Company (Logemann) (defendant) acquired most of Richard Shear’s assets and obtained the exclusive right to manufacture and sell Richard Shear machinery but did not assume Richard Shear’s tort liability. Richard Shear did not merge into Logemann, and Logemann was not a continuation of Richard Shear. Logemann notified Wallace of the acquisition and began servicing Wallace’s machine. In 1978 Otto F. Schumacher (plaintiff), a Wallace employee, was blinded when he was hit by a piece of metal thrown from the shearing machine. Schumacher sued Richards Shear and Logemann in New York state court under theories of strict products liability and negligence. Schumacher filed two claims against Logemann: one for strict products liability based on Richard Shear’s actions, and one for its failure to warn Wallace of a defect in the shearing machine. Logemann filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for the strict-products-liability claim as Richard Shear’s successor and that it had no duty to warn Wallace of a defect in the machine. The trial court granted summary judgment for Logemann and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. Schumacher appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simmons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.