 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Lakeview Co.11/9/2000
n past discussions of personal jurisdiction. See Chavez v. State of Indiana, 122 Ariz. 560, 562, 596 P.2d 698, 700 (1979)(quoting at length § 37 and its comment). The court of appeals has also paid it some attention. See Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc., 20 Ariz.App. 517, 523, 514 P.2d 270, 276 (1973)(referring to Comment a of § 37 in support of the proposition that foreseeability would have prime importance to a minimum contacts analysis). Courts in other states have relied on it as well. See, e.g., Braband v. Beech Aircraft, 367 N.E.2d 118, 123 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)(citing § 37 in support of its exercise of jurisdiction over an airplane manufacturer that had no contacts with Illinois other than post-sale use of the plane in the state); Wendt v. County of Osceola, Iowa, 289 N.W.2d 67, 69-70 (Minn. 1979)(considering § 37 in allowing a Minnesota suit against an Iowa county for failure to post adequate road signs).
Assuming the veracity of the complaint, as we must, there can be no question that Lakeview caused "effects" to occur in Arizona by its conduct in Nevada. Therefore, the only remaining issue under the Restatement is whether the nature of these effects and the relationship between Lakeview and Arizona are such that our exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would be unreasonable.
Comment c to § 37 sets forth criteria for making such a determination. They include "the extent of the relationship of the state to the defendant and to the plaintiff, the nature and quality of the effects resulting from the act, the degree of inconvenience . . . to the defendant . . . and, conversely, the degree of inconvenience that the plaintiff would suffer." In addition, comment e discusses at length the foreseeability of the injury. Conspicuously absent is a strict requirement of causal nexus between the defendant's activities within the state and the injury. Rather, the inquiry focuses almost exclusively on reasonableness in light of the factors listed above.
This multi-faceted approach is perfectly in keeping with the long line of Supreme Court decisions forming the backbone of specific jurisdiction law. " courts in appropriate case may evaluate the burden on the defendant, the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. at 2184 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564 (1980)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In my judgment, the majority cuts too fine a line when it limits today's analysis to a lack of direct causation. I see no reason why Lakeview should not be made to answer in Arizona for the effects of its Nevada conduct occurring here. The defendant has clearly established a relationship with the State of Arizona through its advertising, solicitation of tour buses, employment of citizens, and garnering of business. It has made no claim that litigation in Arizona will be unreasonably inconvenient. The plaintiffs are citizens of this state, giving Arizona a legitimate interest in protecting their well being and access to justice. The state also has a strong interest in making sure that its highways are free from drunk drivers. Finally, this occurrence was foreseeable, considering Lakeview's service of alcohol, proximity to the border, and success in attracting Arizona residents to its casino. The combination of these factors meets the reasonableness requirement of § 37 of the Restatement.
I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
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.
|
|