Thanks for the link, but I still think there's enough nuance in the court system (in any country) to recognise that a manufacturer shouldn't always be held liable for a system just because their logo is on it. There's no law dictating that manufacturers have a duty to make farming equipment impervious to mechanics' failures, and unless there's a clear indication that courts will interpret some law this way, I wouldn't bet on it.

Even in this case, one of the lines of argument seems to have been that the manufacturer was aware of pre-existing safety issues and injuries, yet did not recall the product or adjust its design. That's certainly different than a one-off unauthorised modification blowing up.