Cited by

South Bend Lathe, Inc., 130 N.H. 466, 469-70 (1988) (rejecting “product line” and “risk-spreading” theories of successor liability in products liability actions); Russell v. Philip D. Moran, Inc., 122 N.H. 708, 710-11 (1982) (denying motion to dismiss contractual indemnification and warranty claims because they may be viable under a theory of successor liability); Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054-55 (1981) (affirming imposition of successor liability under stock purchase agreem

We cannot overturn the findings of the trial court simply because we might draw different inferences from the record.

“Findings and rulings falling within the discretion of the trial court will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981).

We will reverse the trial court’s findings and rulings only if “they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Zimmerman v. Suissevale, 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981).

In reviewing the findings and rulings of the trial court, we will uphold them “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981).

We determine whether a “reasonable person ‘could have reached the same decision as the trial court based on the evidence before it.’” Nadeau, 129 N.H. at 666, 531 A.2d at 337 (quoting Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981)).

We look to whether a reasonable person “could have reached the same decision as the trial court based on the evidence before it.” Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981).

Findings of fact will be upheld unless they are unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.

Sav’s and Loan Assoc., 121 N.H. 722, 727, 433 A.2d 1312, 1315 (1981); Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981).

We will not disturb the trial court’s finding as to Mrs. LaFlamme’s intent because a reasonable person could have found as the trial court did.

We will not overturn a master’s findings if they are supported by the evidence, Zimmerman v. Suissevale, Inc., 121 N.H. 1051, 1054, 438 A.2d 290, 292 (1981), especially when the master has been aided by a view in reaching his decisions.

While we *690 might agree that the plaintiffs produced substantial evidence that the use had been abandoned, we will not overturn the trial court’s conclusions of fact, because it could reasonably have concluded on the evidence before it that the use had not been abandoned.

The master’s conclusion as to the value of the steel is supported by the evidence, and a reasonable person could have found as he did; therefore, we will not disturb his finding.