Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Successor Liability and the Long-Lived Product
When is a successor company liable for the torts of its predecessor? The question can be a thorny one, and each state has its own take on the issue. A recent New York case gave a federal district court the chance to decipher that state's legislative and case law, allowing it to conclude that not only was the machine that caused the injury properly made at the time is was manufactured, but also that the current owner of the assets of the company that made it could not be held responsible for a plaintiff's injuries.
An Injury Many Years Down the Road
The case of Redmond v. Teledyne, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87026 (N.D.N.Y. 6/7/17), was brought by plaintiff Daniel Redmond, who lost a thumb in 2012 while working as a machinist at UPSCO Inc. The pipe-cutting machine he was using was manufactured 56 years earlier by Landis Machine Co. The company folded in 1968, but its assets were acquired by Teledyne Machine Corp, which one month later changed its name to Landis Machine Co. Five months after that, Landis Machine Co. merged into Teledyne Argonaut Corp., which changed its name several days later to Teledyne Mid-America Corp. This company merged into Teledyne Industries Inc. in December 1975. Two years later, Teledyne Industries, Inc. sold its pipe-making assets, including the Landis assets, to Barth Industries. Teledyne Industries, Inc. changed its name to TDY Industries, Inc. on Dec. 9, 1999. On Jan. 2, 2012, TDY Industries, Inc. converted to an LLC. See id. And, finally, on Nov. 4, 2013, TDY Industries, LLC sold the remaining assets of its Landis division to Kennametal.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?