## Facts

- George H. Case, a sheeter operator at Garlock, Inc., was injured on January 8, 1998, when his right arm became entangled in a Model KD-IT-45/15 industrial calender machine during his work.
- The calender machine was manufactured in 1982 by Troester Maschinenbau GmbH & Co. (TMG), a German entity that ceased operations and was dissolved and liquidated in 1994.
- Plaintiffs sued Paul Troester Maschinenfabrik (PTM) and Troester Machinery, Ltd. (TML), asserting strict products liability (design defect and failure to warn), negligence (manufacturing defect), breach of express and implied warranties, gross negligence, and loss of consortium.
- PTM, a German partnership, purchased certain limited assets from TMG after TMG’s liquidation and continued producing calender machines and selling to many of TMG’s former customers; the record included evidence of overlapping partners/managers and shared use of the Troester trade name and marketing materials.
- TML, an Ohio corporation formed in 1995, functioned as a U.S. sales subsidiary; it did not manufacture machinery and did not share officers or managers with PTM.

## Issues

1. Whether PTM and/or TML could be held liable as successors to TMG for injuries caused by a machine manufactured by TMG in 1982.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain plaintiffs’ product-liability theories (design defect, manufacturing defect/negligence, failure to warn, warranties, and gross negligence) against PTM and/or TML.
3. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the complaint and obtain additional discovery after the case had progressed.

## Decision

- Defendants’ summary judgment motion was denied in part and granted in part.
- Summary judgment was denied as to PTM on successor-liability grounds, because the record raised a triable question whether PTM was a “mere continuation” or de facto successor to TMG.
- Summary judgment was granted for TML on all claims, because it was a separate sales entity and there was no basis to treat it as a successor or as responsible for the 1982 machine.
- Plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claim was dismissed, based on the plaintiff’s extensive experience and training with the machine and the absence of a triable warning-duty issue on the record presented.
- Plaintiffs’ manufacturing-defect-based negligence claim was dismissed for lack of evidence that the machine deviated from intended design in a causally relevant way.
- Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend the complaint and obtain additional discovery was denied for lack of good cause and unjustified delay.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York successor-liability doctrine, a non-manufacturer defendant may face liability for a predecessor’s product where evidence supports an exception such as “mere continuation” or de facto successor status, including continuity of ownership/management, business operations, and product line.
- A later-formed sales subsidiary that neither manufactured the product nor acquired the predecessor’s assets, and lacks continuity of management/ownership, is not liable absent a legally sufficient basis for successor liability or direct involvement.
- Failure-to-warn claims may fail where the user is trained and experienced and the risk is known or obvious such that an additional warning duty is not supported on the record.
- Manufacturing-defect negligence requires evidence of a defect as a departure from intended design and proof of causation; speculation or absence of defect evidence supports summary judgment.
- After scheduling deadlines and significant discovery, amendment and further discovery may be denied when the moving party fails to show good cause for delay and the requested changes are not justified by the procedural posture.

## Conclusion

The court permitted plaintiffs to proceed against PTM on a successor-liability theory, but dismissed all claims against TML and removed the failure-to-warn and manufacturing-defect negligence theories, while also denying late requests to amend and expand discovery.


Case v. Paul Troester Maschinenfabrik, 139 F. Supp. 2d 428 (W.D.N.Y. 2001)