Fire in Cork car park

In principle it depends on the structure of the deal by which PSM acquired the business from GM. In practice, regerdless of the formal structure, it depends on the terms of the deal, which in turn depend on how anxious GM was to sell, and how anxious PSA was to buy.

Let me explain:

If the car was manufactured by a GM subsidiary, which is liable for manufacturing defects, and PSA bought all the shares in that subsidiary, then PSA now owns a subsidiary which still has the liability.

But part of the deal might have been that GM would indemnify PSA for any "hidden liabilities" relating to problems that arose on GM's watch and that weren't disclosed to PSA at the time of the sale. I've no idea whether there was such a clause in the deal. If there was, depending on the exact facts and the exact terms of the clause PSA might have a go at seeking to reclaim from GM any amount their subsidiary has to pay out because of this incident. But that's a matter between PSA and GM; it wouldn't affect any claimant.

On the other hand, suppose PSA didn't buy the company that manufactured the car, but simply bought the ownership of the brand, the intellectual property in all the manufacturing processes, the factories in which the vehicle is produced, the stocks in hand, etc, etc. Instead of buying the shares in the GM company that conducted the business, they bought the assets of the business, and started to use those assets to run the business themselves.

In an assets transaction of this kind, your aim is only to buy the assets, not the liabilities, so in principle if there's an exising actual or potential liablity for dodgy cars manufactured on GM's watch, that liability stays with the now-dormant GM subsidiary company that used to carry on the business.

But, again, there may have been a term in the deal in which PSA indemnifies GM for any claims arising out of this problem, which GM discloses as part of the negotations for the sale. All other things being equal, obviously, PSA would rather not accept such a term, but it may be necessary to do so in order to get GM to agree to the sale. So if there is such a clause, depending again on its exact terms and on the exact facts, the loss might end up with PSA.

So the answer is: PSA and GM will have thought about this at the time of the sale of the business, will have argued about it, and will have made a deal which allocates the liablity to one or other of them. But we have no way of knowing whidh or them. The outcome of the argument will reflect the priorities and bargaining positions of the two parties.

None of this affects the person with the claim. He just sues the owner of the exploding car, who sues the entity that sold the car to him, who sues ... all the way back up the chain. At the top of the chain either PSA or GM ends up having to shell out and having no-one to sue, but the claimant doesn't care about that.