Docstoc

WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. V. WOODSON, Supreme Ct. of US, 1980. 444 US 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490

Document Sample
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. V. WOODSON, Supreme Ct. of US, 1980. 444 US 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 Powered By Docstoc
					CIV PRO
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. V. WOODSON, Supreme Ct. of US, 1980. 444 US 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490. History: Robinsons brought products liability for defective design/placement of Audi gas tank against Audi, VW of Am, World-Wide VW, and Seaway; WW VW and Seaway entered special appearances, claiming no jurisdiction District Court rejected petitioners constitutional claim and denied petitioners motion for reconsideration; Petitioners then renewed their claim in Supreme Ct. of OK saying they had “minimal contacts”, which was denied Facts: Robinsons bought an Audi from Seaway in NY; Robinsons left NY for AZ and got in an accident in OK where wife and 2 kids were badly burned World-Wide and Seaway do no business in OK Issue(s): Whether an OK court, under 14th Amendment, can exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailers and its wholesale distributor in a products liability action, when Defendants only connection w/OK is that a car sold in NY to NY residents got in an accident in OK. Holding: Petitioners have no contacts or ties w/OK; reversed Analysis: Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in OK Argued it was “foreseeable” Robinsons’ Audi would cause injury in OK, but foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under 14th Amendment; foreseeability is not irrelevant, but it is the defendant’s conduct/connection w/the state that he should reasonably anticipate being dragged into court there Petitioners have no contacts, ties, or relations—no minimal contacts; jurisdiction denied