Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1444,79-1444 |
| Parties | John KINSLER, etc., et al., Appellants, v. ROHM TOOL CORP., etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, West Palm Beach, and Janet W. Freeman, Palm Beach, for appellants.
George & Thompson and Scott R. McNary, Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tutan, O'Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of the summary final judgment entered in favor of Rohm Tool Corporation (Rohm Tool) and R. G. Industries, Inc. (R.G.), both Florida corporations and co-defendants below, on a complaint alleging that they had successive corporate liability for acts of co-defendant, Rohm GmbH, a West German corporation.
This is the second appearance of this case before this court. In the first phase, we affirmed an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction as to co-defendant, Rohm GmbH. 1 Rohm Tool and R. G. were joined in a products liability action on a claim arising from injuries received by the plaintiff from a handgun which allegedly had a defective safety mechanism. The weapon had been manufactured by Rohm GmbH. The handgun was imported into the United States by an American distributor (not joined as a party defendant) and sold at retail by a sporting goods shop in Pinellas County in October, 1968.
Rohm Tool and R. G. are Miami-based corporations which were incorporated in Florida after the handgun in question was sold at retail. Neither Rohm Tool nor R. G. assumed any debts or liabilities of Rohm GmbH, the West German corporation. Plaintiffs alleged, and there were inferences, that Rohm Tool and R. G. were incorporated by Rohm GmbH to avoid the impact of the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.A. § 921 et seq., which prohibited further importation of handguns into the United States. It was also alleged, and there was evidence to show, that: (1) Rohm Tool and R. G. were wholly owned and dominated subsidiaries of Rohm GmbH; (2) there was an interlocking management of the domestic corporations through a common controller; (3) all the net earnings of the Florida corporations were ultimately funnelled to the West German corporation through a bank in Frankfurt; (4) Rohm Tool and R. G. utilized blueprints, designs, and technology furnished to them by Rohm GmbH; (5) the logo of Rohm Tool was indentical with that of Rohm GmbH; and (6) Rohm Tool and R. G. undertook claims and warranty repairs for weapons previously manufactured by Rohm GmbH in West Germany.
It was also undisputed that Rohm GmbH is a viable, ongoing enterprise in West Germany. Plaintiff asserts, due to the allegations and showing made (primarily those allegations of the alleged statutory violation of the Gun Control Act and the warranty repairs made on behalf of Rohm GmbH) that summary final judgment in favor of Rohm Tool and R. G. was improper because they were a mere continuation and reincarnation of Rohm GmbH, the West German corporation. Plaintiff relies upon Knapp v. North American Rockwell Corporation, 506 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 965, 95 S.Ct. 1955, 44 L.Ed.2d 452 (1975); Cyr v. B. Offen & Co. Inc., 501 F.2d 1145 (1st Cir. 1974); Holloway v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., Div. of Hobam, Inc., 432 F.Supp. 454 (D.S.C.1977); Shannon v. Samuel Langston Company, 379 F.Supp. 797 (W.D.Mich.1974); Ray v. Alad Corporation, 19 Cal.3d 22, 560 P.2d 3, 136 Cal.Rptr. 574 (1977); Western Resources Life Insurance Company v. Gerhardt, 553 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); Annot., 66 A.L.R.3d 824 (1975) Products Liability of Successor Corporations for Injury or Damage by Product Issued by Predecessor.
We find it unnecessary to reach the merits of the plaintiff's theory for imposing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meisel v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co.
...Corp., 88 Mich.App. 747, 279 N.W.2d 544 (1979); Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., 394 So.2d 552 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So.2d 1280 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781 (Ala.1979); People ex rel. Donahue v. Perkins & Will Architect......
-
Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., Inc.
...responsibility of the predecessor to determine potential liability of a successor company, creating conflict with Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The vast majority of jurisdictions follow the traditional corporate law rule which d......
-
Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., Inc., 80-845
...only Florida decision which has considered the question of successor liability in products liability actions is Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). There, the plaintiff asserted that the successor corporation was a mere continuation of its predecessor. In affirmin......
-
Kelly v. American Precision Industries, Inc.
...of the predecessor in determining liability of a successor, thus creating conflict with the earlier case of Kinsler v. Rohm Tool Corp., 386 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The Supreme Court affirmed the Second District, beginning its analysis by stating the traditional corporate law rule, wh......