Specific Jxn
World Wide Volkswagen:
1. Robinsons bought Audi from Seaway (NY). They were driving through Okla. intending
to create a new domicile in Ariz., when they got in an accident.
2. Still had NY domicile – wanted to join NY defendant (Seaway) to destroy diversity –
problem was PJ over the NY defendants in Okla state court
3. Long-arm statute in Okla.
4. McGee factors very strong in favor of PJ.
5. Court concludes that it doesn’t matter if it would be more convenient to have the suit in
Okla., need to put more weight on the actions that Seaway took to reach out to forum
state.
Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals (US 1971)
1. Foresee that harmful thing (chemicals) would make their way into another state (Ohio).
Compare to World-Wide with foreseeability of car traveling to Okla. Differentiate
between the two by looking at the strength and degree that foreseeable consequences in
for state will occur. Also relevant that in WWVW it was through human agents (and
particulat the plaintiff) rather than natural forces that the product ended up in the forum
state
Distributor cases: have product manufacturer that sells products in a state solely through a third
party distributor. Generally had been held that PJ can be asserted over manufacturer even though
contact is through a 3rd party distributor, but this is put into doubt by Asahi and McIntyre
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (US 1987)
1. Motorcycle accident in Cal. Assume the accident is a result of negligent tire
manufacturing by CS. Zurcher (P) sues
2. CS impleads Asahi—Japanese manufacturer of the tire valve stems.
a. CS: if CS found liable to Z then all or part of that should be paid by Asahi
i. Component partner also responsible
3. Procedural history:
a. Taiwanese manufacturer vs. Japanese manufacturer in Cal. State court.
b. Impleader is when the ∆ brings in a party and says that if ∆ loses in a suit then
this other party is liable to the ∆ for all or part of the payout to the Π.
i. Does impleader count if the case settles? => answer later when we talk
about impleaders.
c. US Supreme Court says there is no PJ over Asahi
4. Forum contacts with Cal. (between Asahi and Cal.): Asahi valves are components of
tubes for sale in Cal. (out of one store there were at least 21 valve stems, so in Cal. as a
whole there was likely 10s of thousands and Asahi knows it)
5. Part II-B (8 justices behind it): not about power, question about McGee factors
(convenience) and “reasonableness.” Conclude that the case fails the McGee factors:
a. Burdensome for ∆ Japanese company to go to Cal.
b. Easier for Taiwanese company to go to Japan than Cal., but wants to stay in Cal.
court because the decision will be made by a jury who is likely to award more
money
c. Interest of forum state: don’t want defective products causing accidents in Cal.
and wants compensation to those harmed. But, these interests have already been
served by tort action that Zurcher brought against CS.
i. CS has already paid out to the Californian who was harmed. Cal. is not
interested in the impleader between Asahi and CS because its not
Docsity.com
