The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases rejecting state court jurisdiction over defendants where the defendants did not take acts to “purposely avail” themselves of the “privilege of conducting activities within the foreign State or did not have “continuous and systematic contacts, with the forum.” The Court rejected a “stream of commerce” argument to justify jurisdiction simply because a product ended up in the foreign State. It held that the defendants must target the foreign State even in a case where the defendants might have predicted its product would end up there.
In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro), 2011 WL 2518811, ____U.S. _____ (2011). A British manufacturer’s machine which allegedly injured the plaintiff ended up in New Jersey where suit was brought. The defendant had no other contact with the State and the Supreme Court held that under these circumstances jurisdiction could not be grounded on whether it was “foreseeable” that the product would be present in the foreign State. Of significance, the Court held that the result would apply to domestic, as well as foreign producers.
In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 2011 WL 2518815, ____ U.S. _____ (2011) an alleged defective tire contributed to injuries in France to two North Carolina residents. The tire was manufactured by subsidiaries of a U.S. corporation. Both Goodyear and its subsidiaries were sued in North Carolina. Although the subsidiaries were not registered to do business in that state, nor did they advertise to do business there, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held there was jurisdiction over the subsidiaries because some of the tires made by them had reached North Carolina through “the stream of commerce”. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that while it might be enough to establish “specific jurisdiction” if one of those imported tires had caused injury in North Carolina, it was not enough to establish “general jurisdiction” with respect to activities elsewhere.