 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wharton v. Earl Brown & Sons12/11/2001
Daniel L. Wharton, a Washington resident, was injured in an industrial accident at the site of a construction project at the Earl Brown & Sons, Inc., (Brown) storage facility located in Milton-Freewater, Oregon. At the time of the accident, Mr. Wharton was employed by Schmitt Electric, a subcontractor on the construction project. Mr. Wharton filed this personal injury action against the general contractor, G.G. Richardson, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Brown, an Oregon corporation. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Brown, concluding the State of Washington lacked general or specific personal jurisdiction over Brown. Mr. Wharton appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
FACTS
Daniel L. Wharton was injured while working as an apprentice electrician for Schmitt Electric at the site of an expansion project at the storage facility of Earl Brown & Sons, Inc., in Milton-Freewater, Oregon. Mr. Wharton, a Washington resident, commuted to the job site from his home in Kennewick. Mr. Wharton filed a personal injury action in Washington against the general contractor, G.G. Richardson, a Washington corporation, and Brown, an Oregon corporation. Mr. Wharton also filed an action in Oregon.
Brown filed a motion for summary judgment in this case asserting the Washington courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Brown. Brown filed two statements of undisputed facts summarizing the extent of its corporate activities in Washington. Brown points out that: (1) it is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of business in Milton-Freewater, Oregon; (2) Brown did not do business in the State of Washington, but was registered as a foreign corporation; (3) Brown had not conducted any business in Washington since approximately 1980; (4) the major portion of Brown's operation was growing and packing apples, but none of Brown's orchards were located in Washington; (5) Brown did receive fruit from some growers on consignment and that five of these growers--supplying approximately 20 percent of Brown's total product--were Washington growers; (6) Brown's fruit was shipped to its facility in Oregon; and (7) Brown did not pay Washington tax.
Mr. Wharton points to additional facts regarding Brown's contacts with Washington. First, Brown had a registered agent in Washington and was listed in the Walla Walla telephone directory. Second, Brown contracted with Rainier Fruit Sales, Inc., in Selah, Washington, to serve as Brown's exclusive broker for selling fruit. Third, the expansion project Mr. Wharton was working on at the time of the injury was undertaken by G.G. Richardson, headquartered in Wenatchee, and was financed through an agreement between Brown and Northwest Farm Credit Services of Spokane.
Like G.G. Richardson, Mr. Wharton's employer, Schmitt Electric, also had offices in Wenatchee. Fourth, Mr. Wharton's injuries were covered under the Washington industrial insurance system.
The court granted Brown's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the cause of action against Brown. Mr. Wharton appeals.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review.
The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction. Hein v. Taco Bell, Inc., 60 Wn. App. 325, 328, 803 P.2d 329 (1991). When the underlying facts are undisputed, the question of whether a court may exercise personal jurisdiction is a question of law. Harbison v. Garden Valley Outfitters, Inc., 69 Wn. App. 590, 595, 849 P.2d 669 (1993). When the trial court has considered matters outside the pleadings, we review the trial court's ruling under the standard for review of summary judgment and consider the facts a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|