a BARBRI company

LAW PREVIEW
2013BARBRI,INC.
CASE BRIEF
CaseBrief:World-WideVolkswagenCorp.v.Woodson
III ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY: THE PARTIES.
A. In Personam Jurisdiction.
NAME: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, Supreme Court of the United States (1980).
FACTS:
0 (1976) P Robinson purchased an Audi automobile from D Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. in Massena, New York.
0 Seaways wholesale distributor was World-Wide Volkswagen Corp, a company incorporated in the State of
New York, which distributes vehicles, parts and accessories to Volkswagen retailers in New York, New Jersey
and Connecticut.
0 (1977) P and his family were seriously injured when, while passing through the State of Oklahoma, they
were involved in an automobile accident that resulted in a fre due to an allegedly defective gas tank and fuel
system on the Audi.
0 P brought a products liability suit in Oklahoma state court naming, among others, Seaway Volkswagen, Inc.
and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.
PROCEDURE: P Robinson commenced an action in the District Court for Creek County, Oklahoma and D entered special
appearances and moved to dismiss the complaint against them claiming that Oklahoma lacked personal
jurisdiction over them. The District Court denied Ds motion holding that it did have jurisdiction over the
Ds. Ds subsequent petition to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of prohibition to restrain the
District Court from excising jurisdiction over Ds was also denied. Ds appealed the Oklahoma Supreme
Courts decision denying the writ of prohibition to the United States Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction or a nonresident automobile retailer
and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action, when the Ds only connection with Oklahoma is
the fact that an automobile sold in New York -- to New York residents became involved in an accident in
Oklahoma?
HOLDING: Because Ds Seaway and World-Wide had no contacts, ties or relations with the State of Oklahoma, the
District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
REASONING: Rule: A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident D only so long as there exist minimum
contacts between the D and the forum state such that a D should reasonably anticipate being hailed into
court there.
0 Ps ofered no evidence that Seaway or World-Wide engaged in any conduct whatsoever in Oklahoma.
0 Ds did not close any sales, solicit sales perform any services in Oklahoma.
0 Ds did not avail themselves of the privileges and benefts of Oklahoma law.
0 Even though one could argue that it was foreseeable that the car sold to Ps would travel through, and become
involved in an accident in, Oklahoma, a sellers amenability to suit does not travel with the chattel he sells.
DISPOSITION: United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
CLASS NOTES: