 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hollingsworth & Vose Company v. Connor11/1/2000
y deliberations, the last two "occupational defendants" settled with plaintiff; thus, H&V;and Lorillard were the only remaining defendants. Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against H&V;and Lorillard in the amount of $2.225 million, with $225,000 representing medical expenses and $2 million representing non-economic damages. Final judgment was entered; this appeal followed.
I. Personal Jurisdiction over H&V;BR>
Discussion
H&V;contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It argues that the State of Maryland lacks personal jurisdiction because it is a non-resident defendant, and jurisdiction cannot be achieved under Maryland's long-arm statute.
H&V;is not a Maryland corporation; it was incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its principal place of business is in that state. Thus, in order for a Maryland court to assert personal jurisdiction over H&V; it must do so through Md. Code (1973, 1998 Repl. Vol., 2000 Cum Supp.), ยง 6-103 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJ"), which provides:
(a) Condition. -- If jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, he may be sued only on a cause of action arising from any act enumerated in this section.
(b) In general. -- A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by agent:
(1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State;
(2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State;
(3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in the State;
(4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the state or derives substantial revenue from goods, food, services, or manufactured products used or consumed in the State;
(5) Has an interest in, uses, or possesses real property in the State; or
(6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk, contract, obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing.
The purpose of this statute is to give the courts personal jurisdiction over all out-of-state defendants who purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Maryland, thus invoking the benefits and protections of Maryland law. Mylan Lab., Inc. v. AKZO, N.V., 2 F.3d 56 (4th Cir. 1993); Malinow v. Eberly, 322 F. Supp. 594 (D. Md. 1971); Mohamed v. Michael, 279 Md. 653, 370 A.2d 551 (1977) (it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state -- thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws); Harris v. Arlen Properties, Inc., 256 Md. 185, 260 A.2d 22 (1969).
Appellee's Arguments
Appellee points out that H&V;"was directly involved in the promotional undertakings" together with Lorillard in regard to the Kent cigarettes and that "H&V;even went so far as to place an upper level employee at Lorillard on a full-time basis." We are given no specific examples of such conduct in appellee's brief. We will not consider this, or subsequent, general conclusory arguments that are supported only by circular reasoning and that are not appropriately correlated with specific legal autho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|