 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Lakeview Co.11/9/2000
We granted review to decide whether Arizona courts may exercise specific jurisdiction over a personal injury action brought by residents of Mohave County, Arizona, against a Nevada casino for damages caused by the casino's service of liquor in Nevada to an intoxicated patron. The casino regularly and continuously advertises in Arizona, solicits Arizona tour bus trade, and employs a number of Arizona residents. For the following reasons, we hold that absent a causal connection between the casino's Arizona contacts and the plaintiffs' claims, specific jurisdiction does not attach.
I.
On February 8, 1997, Michelyn Williams and Kelly Williams (the plaintiffs) traveled to Boulder City, Nevada, with Patrick Kelsey, Jr. While in Nevada, the trio visited the Gold Strike Inn & Casino, a business located just past the Arizona border and owned by a Nevada general partnership, Lakeview Company. At the casino, Mr. Kelsey consumed a large amount of alcohol. Although the plaintiffs were concerned about Mr. Kelsey's intoxication level, they allowed him to drive on the return trip to Arizona. Once over the state line, he lost control of the car, and the plaintiffs received serious injuries in the resulting single-car accident.
The plaintiffs filed suit in Arizona against Lakeview and its partners. On Lakeview's motion, the trial court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed, holding that although Lakeview had insufficient contacts with Arizona to create general jurisdiction over it and its partners, the plaintiffs' injuries were sufficiently related to the existing contacts to permit the court to exercise specific jurisdiction.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Constitution, article VI, section 5(3), Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (A.R.S.) ยง 12-120.24, and Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 23.
II.
The basic principles that govern Arizona's authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant are familiar and well-established, see generally, e.g., Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 153 Ariz. 268, 736 P.2d 2 (1987), and we address them only briefly. The Due Process Clause limits state court jurisdiction over foreign defendants. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2181-82 (1985). Because Arizona's long-arm rule confers jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause, " he jurisdictional issue . . . hinges on federal law." Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569, 892 P.2d 1354, 1358 (1995).
The personal jurisdiction test, set out in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S. Ct. 154, 160 (1945), requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Personal jurisdiction may be divided into two types: (1) general jurisdiction and (2) specific jurisdiction. Under either specific or general jurisdiction, "the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established 'minimum contacts' in the forum State." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474, 105 S. Ct. at 2183. A non-resident defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are substantial or continuous and systematic enough that the defendant may be haled into court in the forum, even for claims unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 1872 (1984). The level of contact r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|