In Chadwick, the court stated that the issue presented was "whether a corporation which purchases the assets of another corporation, and as a consequence of purchase becomes aware that the seller corporation had put a negligently designed device into the channels of commerce, is under a duty to warn third persons of its vendor's negligence."

In order to so hold, the court inserted the following bracketed language into the statute: " `Any claim existing [not yet sued upon] or action or proceeding [already commenced] pending by or against the [dissolved] corporation or [any claim not yet sued upon or action or proceeding] which would have accrued against it [had dissolution not occurred] may be prosecuted to …

Such a statute "extending the vitality of a dissolved corporation for purposes of suit are remedial in nature and should be given a liberal construction."

The purchaser of a corporation which manufactured the "Armstrong X4 Model 500" baby incubator was under no duty to give warning of the negligent design of the incubator to third persons whose rights evolved through former dealings with the incubator manufacturer.

—the court found that even if the successor corporation had knowledge of claims against the predecessor for design defects it had no duty to warn absent an assumption of liability or a special relationship between the successor and plaintiff.

—it was held that an Ohio statute containing the two-year limitation did not bar a post-dissolution tort action because the Ohio legislature had expressly added the following language to that of the Model Act, "or which would have accrued."

—allowing a dissolved corporation to be sued on a claim arising after dissolution pursuant to the Ohio statute providing recovery for claims which would have accrued against it but for dissolution

—it was determined the addition of the foregoing language would have no meaning unless it was construed to mean post-dissolution claims.

—therein. Many of the said statutes, however, bear a strong resemblance to section 98 of the Model Business Corporation Act. Section 98, in its pertinent part, provides that dissolution of a corporation shall not take away or impair any remedy available against such corporation for any right or claim existing, or any liability incurred, prior to dissolution. It is, therefore, quite …

But products claims, unlike such torts as fraud and patent infringement, can arise long after the transferor has liquidated and distributed its assets