World wide volkswagen corp v woodson

The Robinson's counterclaim and Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion were based on foreseeability — a car sold in New York is mobile, and therefore it was foreseeable by World-Wide and Seaway that a car sold by them could subsequently lead to an injury in Oklahoma.

World wide volkswagen corp v woodson

Facts: New York residents purchased a car from a retailer in New York, which was struck in the rear by another vehicle in Oklahoma. The purchasers brought a products-liability action in Oklahoma against the car retailer.

volkswagen vs woodson brief

Supreme Court decision[ edit ] The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the federal appeals court and agreed with World-Wide and Seaway that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction over them. Notes: The dealership and distributor receive no benefit if vehicles are driven into OK.

A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident only so long as there exist " minimum contacts " between the defendant and the forum state.

World wide volkswagen v woodson wiki

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma denied the writ, holding that personal jurisdiction was authorized under state law. Minimum contacts must exist "among the parties, the contested transaction, and the forum state". Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Creek County was at that time known as home to some of the most plaintiff sympathetic juries in the country. He had no insurance or assets and was therefore judgment proof. If foreseeability were the only criteria, "Every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process. Notes: The dealership and distributor receive no benefit if vehicles are driven into OK. Woodson - U. The mere "unilateral activity" of a party who claims some relationship with the nonresident defendant is not enough to satisfy the requirement of minimum contact in a forum state. The Robinsons claimed that a product defect in the car led to the injuries they sustained—specifically, the Audi's gas tank was located beneath the trunk , in an area that the Robinsons claimed was susceptible to being punctured and igniting in a rear-end collision. Jurisdiction should be valid if a product enters a state in the course of its intended use by the consumer. The Due Process Clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations. Robinsons sued auto manufacturer, importer, regional distributor, and retail dealer in OK. The purchasers brought a products-liability action in Oklahoma against the car retailer. Regional distributor World-wide Volks and retail dealer Seaway Volks are the parties in this case about jurisdiction.

They avail themselves to none of the privileges and benefits of OK law. Dissent: Marshall… Jurisdiction should be valid in this case because the purposeful and deliberate actions of the Ds in choosing to become part of a nationwide network for marketing and servicing cars.

world wide volkswagen v woodson case summary
Rated 9/10 based on 110 review
Download