Wilson v. Fare Well Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1976 |
| Citation | 140 N.J.Super. 476,356 A.2d 458 |
| Parties | Joseph WILSON and Percina Wilson, Plaintiffs, v. FARE WELL CORP., a corporation of Massachusetts, formerly known as Geo. S. Harwood & Sons, Inc., a corporation of Massachusetts, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Freeman, Friedman, Wilson & Carney, Newark, for plaintiffs (James F. Carney, Newark, appearing).
Weiss & Di Rienzo, for defendants Davis & Furber Machine Co. (Joseph Di Rienzo, Westfield, appearing).
Conway, Reiseman, Michals & Wahl, Newark, for defendant Crompton & Knowles Corp. (Douglas Kleinfeld, Newark, appearing).
Hueston, Hueston & Sheehan, Elizabeth, for defendant James Hunter Machine Co., Inc. (Robert T. Hueston, Elizabeth, appearing).
In this civil case plaintiff Joseph Wilson is alleging he suffered injuries due to the defective design, manufacture, construction and maintenance of a certain machine by Fare Well Corp., formerly George S. Harwood & Sons, Inc., as succeeded by Davis and Furber Machine Company; The James Hunter Machine Company as succeeded by James Hunter Machine Company, Division of Crompton and Knowles Corp.; Hunter Investment Corp., formerly The James Hunter Machine Company; Crompton and Knowles Corp. and the recently organized James Hunter Machine Company.
The action comes before this court by way of three motions for summary judgment--one in favor of defendant Crompton and Knowles Corp., one in favor of defendant Davis and Furber Machine Company, and one in favor of defendant James Hunter Machine Company.
At the hearing the motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant James Hunter Machine Company was granted without objection due to the fact that this company did not even come into existence until approximately nine months after the alleged accident took place. Thus, as a matter of law and fact, it was found that this company could not be held liable for any of plaintiff's injuries.
The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff sustained personal injuries while operating a machine consisting of five parts while in the course of his work at his place of employment, Supreme Felt. Four of the parts (the Garnett, lapper, floor apron and wind-up) were manufactured by The James Hunter Machine Co., and one part (the Bramwell Feeder) was manufactured by George S. Harwood and Sons, Inc. The machine in question was shipped to Supreme Felt in Elizabeth by George S. Harwood and Sons, Inc. and installed by the employees of The James Hunter Machine Co. in 1952. The Garnett parts and Feeder part were put together to form the complete machine.
The accident herein complained of occurred on April 28, 1972. Plaintiff alleges a cause of action against all defendants due to negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability. The liability of a manufacturer for the unreasonably unsafe products it places into the channels of trade has been clearly established in this state. Bexiga v. Havir Mfg. Corp., 60 N.J. 402, 290 A.2d 281 (1972). The actual merits of the case are not in issue. The major area of dispute is the basis upon which each defendant may be sued, taking into consideration the changes in corporate identities, and the sales of assets which have taken place between the time of manufacture of the machine and the time of the accident.
It is most important to understand the corporate history of each company as well as the agreements between the companies.
In the late 1800s The James Hunter Machine Company (Hunter) was incorporated for the manufacture and distribution of machines for the textile industry. On December 27, 1961 Crompton and Knowles Corp. (C & K) entered into an agreement with Hunter for certain of Hunter's assets, property and business. The closing date of sale to these assets was held on January 2, 1962. Thereafter, Hunter operated under the new name of Hunter Investment Corp. and C & K continued the manufacturing operations of Hunter under the name of James Hunter Machine Company, a Division of Crompton and Knowles.
The agreement between Hunter and C & K is lengthy and quite complex. It basically provides for C & K to acquire all inventory of goods, all machinery, jigs, tools, patterns, equipment, furniture, fixtures, real estate, buildings, trademarks, patents and good will of Hunter. However, it made specific exceptions for life insurance proceeds, trade notes and accounts receivable, securities, one piece of property in South Carolina, and 'all claims and causes of action of every nature relating to operations prior to the date of the closing and to obligations and liabilities and assumed by C & K hereunder.' As consideration C & K was to pay Hunter in the following way: transfer of 30,000 shares of common stock of C & K to Hunter at an agreed value of $30 a share, a promissory note for $1,000,000. and cash if book values exceeded $1,900,000., plus $150,000. C & K agreed to assume all obligations under contracts with customers entered into in the ordinary course of business by Hunter accruing after the closing date, all liabilities under Hunter's retirement plan, all liabilities for group insurance, all real and personal property taxes assessed as of January 1, 1962 and thereafter, all labor contracts, all other contracts, leases or other instruments arising from prior agreements with Hunter. The president of Hunter became vice-president and director of C & K, as well as president of The James Hunter Machine Company, Division of Crompton and Knowles. Hunter agreed not to use its old name anywhere, not to engage in the business of developing, manufacturing or selling textile machinery, and to completely revise its corporate purpose so that C & K benefits solely from its previously acquired trademark and good will.
After the closing date C & K operated exactly as Hunter operated. All machinery previously designed, manufactured and sold by Hunter was now done by C & K. The same equipment, management, employees and servicing arrangements which were available at Hunter were available at C & K. There were no basic changes in the operations regarding manufacture of either the Garnett machine or any other machinery which had previously been manufactured by Hunter.
In 1973 most of these same assets were sold back to The James Hunter Machine Company, Inc. Section 13 of that agreement stated:
It is further understood and agreed that nothing contained in this agreement, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, shall in any way prejudice the rights or obligations of Crompton or Hunter Investment Corporation with respect to any claims or litigation now pending or hereafter instituted relating to or arising out of products sold by The James Hunter Machine Company prior to the closing under the 1961 agreement, it being understood and agreed that such rights and obligations shall be determined without reference to this agreement. Crompton and the Purchaser each agrees that it will cooperate with the other party in the defense of any such claims or litigation brought by third parties and will each use its best efforts to cause its respective employees to cooperate and assist therein.
Davis and Furber Machine Company (D & F) was incorporated in the late 1800s. The business of George S. Harwood & Sons, Inc. (Harwood) was also organized in the 1800s. On September 5, 1967 Sydney Harwood, doing business under the name and style of George S. Harwood & Sons, Inc., sold by assignment to D & F all right, title and interest to the trade mark of 'Bramwell,' together with the good will of the business symbolized by that trademark for $200,000. In addition, the Fare Well Corporation, Sydney Harwood, president, sold to D & F all its right, title and interest in and to the name of George S. Harwood & Son together with the good will of the business. Fare Well Corporation dissolved in May 1968.
In the agreement between Harwood and D & F, all rights of action, claims for damages, profits and costs, and any other demands for money held by Harwood in law or equity by reason of infringement on the trademark, were sold, assigned and transferred to D & F.
On September 25, the same day of the agreement, two latters were sent out--one by Harwood and one by D & F--to customers of the respective companies. The pertinent parts of Harwood's letter, signed by President Sydney Harwood, stated:
OF NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP:
This is to advise you that Geo. S. Harwood & Son, Inc. ceased its manufacturing operations on September 25, 1967 and has sold to Davis and Furber Machine Company all properties which they will require for taking over and carrying on in North Andover, Massachusetts the manufacture of Bramwell Feeders and repair items for all outstanding Harwood machines.
It will be to the advantage of all parties concerned if you will so notify any members of your organization who are concerned with the ordering of repair items for Harwood machinery owned by your company, or who may have occasion to require service of any kind of connection with same.
We wish to express our thanks for the business you have given us in years past, and to assure you that our products are being taken over by a thoroughly reliable company which will be vitally interested in serving you as well as we have tried to do in the past. Finally, we think you will be glad to know that Mr. Albert R. Jee and I have joined the Davis & Furber organization and are in charge of manufacturing and servicing Bramwell Feeders.
The letter from D & F, signed by President Arthur W. Reynolds, stated:
NOTICE TO ALL DAVIS & FURBER CUSTOMERS:
Davis and Furber Machine Company has now acquired the entire Harwood line of Feeders and Repair and Supply items. The enclosed letter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
...N. J. Transp. Dep't v. PSC Resources, Inc., 175 N.J.Super. 447, 454, 419 A.2d 1151 (Law Div.1980); Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J.Super. 476, 484, 356 A.2d 458 (Law Div.1976); McKee, supra, 109 N.J.Super. at 561, 264 A.2d 98. See also 15 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Cor......
-
TRACEY BY TRACEY v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co.
...361, 431 A.2d 826, 832-33 (1981); Andrews v. John E. Smith's Sons Co., 369 So.2d 781, 784-85 (Ala.1979); Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J. Super. 476, 356 A.2d 458, 467-68 (1976). 23 McCollister testified that he was aware that the Model 1894 shotgun had the type of "exposed hammer" which......
-
Becker v. Interstate Properties
...Cintrone v. Hertz Truck Leasing and Rental Service, 45 N.J. 434, 446, 212 A.2d 769, 775 (1965). See Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J.Super. 476, 356 A.2d 458 (App.Div.1976) (liability of successor corporation for defective product of original corporation), citing with approval Knapp v. No......
-
Mettinger v. Globe Slicing Mach. Co., Inc.
...debts and liabilities of the transferor, including those arising out of the latter's tortious conduct." Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J.Super. 476, 484, 356 A.2d 458 (Law Div.1976) (quoting McKee v. Harris-Seybold Co., 109 N.J.Super. 555, 264 A.2d 98 (Law Div.1970), aff'd, 118 N.J.Super.......
-
Successor Liability in Washington: When a Successor Should Be Liable for a Predecessor's Products Liability-meisel v. M and N Modern Hydraulic Press Company
...1970), aff'd per curiam, 118 N.J. Super. 480, 288 A.2d 585 (App. Div. 1972), overruled, Wilson v. Fare Well Corp., 140 N.J. Super. 476, 356 A.2d 458 (Law Div. 36. The "continuation" theory is the most nebulous concept. It, like the de facto merger theory, reflects the concepts of "separate ......