 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hansen v. Scott6/10/2002
es of any sending state and in the exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards that prevail for its own probationers and parolees.")
[ ] Assuming the truth of the allegations in the complaint, the Texas defendants effectively sent a dangerous parolee to North Dakota without fully disclosing his dangerous propensities. See Rodenburg, 2001 ND 139, 19-22, 632 N.W.2d 407 (authorizing exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident who supplied gun to person who traveled to North Dakota and used gun in an attempted murder). Cf. Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 521 N.W.2d 401, 406-10 (N.D. 1994) (holding manufacturer has post-sale duty to warn about dangers associated with products); McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229, 233-34 (N.D. 1992) (holding manufacturer has duty to customer for rape by manufacturer's independent distributer). The Texas defendants' affirmative action of asking North Dakota to supervise Lawrence, a Texas parolee, constitutes activity in which they purposely availed itself of the privilege of sending Lawrence to North Dakota. After Lawrence arrived in North Dakota, there were continuing contacts between Texas and North Dakota regarding Lawrence's activities in North Dakota. The Texas defendants' contacts with North Dakota stem from their parole relationship with Lawrence, the alleged instrumentality of the daughters' claims. The sending state, Texas, and the receiving state, North Dakota, operated with a clear understanding that Lawrence would be permitted to live in North Dakota while serving his Texas parole. The Texas defendants' alleged conduct and activities with North Dakota regarding Lawrence are such that they could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in North Dakota.
[ ] Although the placement of a Texas parolee in North Dakota for supervision is not a commercial transaction, the Texas defendants unequivocally directed activity regarding Lawrence to North Dakota. See Rodenburg, 2001 ND 139, 18-19, 632 N.W.2d 407. The daughters' claims arise out of Lawrence's actions and the Texas defendants' contacts with North Dakota, and we reject the Texas defendants' claim that contacts mandated by the Interstate Compact should not be considered for purposes of the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Rather, we believe those contacts militate in favor of the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the daughters, we conclude the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Texas defendants does not offend traditional notions of substantial justice, fair play, or due process of law.
[ ] We reverse the dismissal of the daughters' action against the Texas defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ ]Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Bruce Bohlman, D.J.
I concur in the result Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
[ ] The Honorable Bruce E. Bohlman, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 North Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|