You are here: / / PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY,...
,

PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the products liability complaint against Ford USA, based upon asbestos brake linings manufactured and distributed by Ford UK, should have been dismissed. The Court of Appeals concluded Ford USA could only be held liable for a product manufactured and distributed by a wholly owned subsidiary by piercing the corporate veil, a theory unsupported by the facts alleged:

Ford USA was not a party within the distribution chain, nor can it be said that it actually placed the parts into the stream of commerce. Although plaintiff submitted evidence tending to show that Ford USA provided guidance to Ford UK in the design of certain tractor components, absent any evidence that Ford USA was in fact a manufacturer or seller of those components, Ford USA may not be held liable under a strict products liability theory … . * * *

Ford USA, as the parent corporation of Ford UK, may not be held derivatively liable to plaintiff under a theory of strict products liability unless Ford USA disregarded the separate identity of Ford UK and involved itself directly in that entity's affairs such that the corporate veil could be pieced … a conclusion that neither Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division reached in this instance. Finerty v Abex Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03411, CtApp 5-3-16

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)/CORPORATION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PARENT CORPORATION NOT LIABLE, UNDER A STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY THEORY, FOR ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY)

You might also like
1961 Royalties-Agreement Between Duke Ellington and Music Publishers Was Not Ambiguous and Could Not Be Interpreted to Refer to Parties (“Affiliates” of the Music Publishers) Which Did Not Exist In 1961—Therefore the Ellington Estate Was Not Entitled to a 50% Share of the Revenues Earned by Foreign Subpublishers With Which the Original Music Publishers Have Affiliated Since 1961
Sentencing Court Need Not Inform Defendant of Possible Consequences of Violating Postrelease Supervision
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).
Records of Criminal Proceedings Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Accessed by the Commission on Judicial Misconduct Investigating the Alleged Misconduct of a Judge—The Law Surrounding the Sealing of Criminal Records Explained—Mootness Doctrine Explained
IN AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, THE WAIVERS OF APPEAL IN TWO OF THE THREE APPEALS BEFORE THE COURT WERE DECLARED INVALID BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THAT ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL AND COLLATERAL RELIEF ARE CUT OFF BY THE WAIVER; IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE OMISSION OF THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF AN OFFENSE FROM A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR (CT APP).
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE (CT APP)
ACTIONS TAKEN BY A NEW YORK ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE JUDICIARY LAW 470, WHICH REQUIRES AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK, ARE NOT A NULLITY (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION... FAILURE TO PRODUCE DEFENDANT FOR A PROBATION INTERVIEW FOR THE PRESENTENCE REPORT...