Comparative Analysis of Jurisdiction in International Product Liability: VW, Ohio v. Wyand, Study notes of Civil procedure

Download Comparative Analysis of Jurisdiction in International Product Liability: VW, Ohio v. Wyand and more Study notes Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! 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 interested in business dealings between Japanese and Taiwanese companies. ii. But, could argue there is still a deterrence argument for Asahi because Asahi’s products are sold in Cal. so Cal. wants to deter negligently manufactured products and it does that through allowing CS to implead Asahi iii. Eg. Customer beat up by employee of co. so sues co…. co. impleads employee Forum state has an interest in the impleader to deter the employee from causing harm Without impleader, deterrence is focused only on employer - employees still will not care whether act recklessly or not iv. Could also argue compensatory argument for the harmed party to actually receive the awarded damages – CS will be able to pay Zurcher because Asahi will pay CS d. Choice of law used: Japanese or Taiwanese law (contractual obligations, etc) e. Witnesses: probably in Japan f. Conclusions: McGee factors lead to no PJ even if there is power g. This is a surprise – usually McGee factors are used to argue for PJ - When McGee factors in favor of PJ but on the fence with power, then McGee factors push it over the top and help to establish PJ. Here, uncharacteristically, the McGee factors dissuade the justices from granting PJ even if there is power 6. Part II-A (4 justices behind it, so doesn’t create law): about power over Asahi and what it did to reach out to the forum state. (dicta, not law, and not necessary to resolve the case) a. Asahi knew that its products ended up in CA, but they needed to do more to reach out to Cal. b. O’Connor II-A: wants something more from Asahi that is directed toward Cal. E.g., design the product for the market in the forum state, advertising in the forum state, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum state. Question about how to actually implement some of O’Connor’s suggestions with respect to tire valves. Slightly absurd. c. Brennan’s view on power: believes that power exists. Placing something in the stream-of-commerce with awareness that the product will end up in Cal. is enough. Satisfied in this case. d. Stevens’s view on power: minimum contacts exists even given O’Connor’s standard. There was more than mere awareness. This case satisfies O’Connor’s test because the sheer number of valves entering Cal.—ramps up production for valves entering Cal. as well as the dangerousness of product. e. Situation when Brennan would say there is power and Stevens would say there isn’t: McIntyre or the Appalachian potter example in McIntyre? f. Lower courts trying to determine whether there is power in Asahi like cases - many looked to Stevens’s opinion. When you have no opinion that a majority agreed upon on the matter but you have a majority agreeing on a conclusion lower courts often follow the opinion that offers the narrowest ground for the conclusion Docsity.com