 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoskinson v. California12/13/1990
ore, jurisdictional determinations in tort cases focus on the causal link between the forum contact and the allegedly tortious act. (Emphasis added.)
Appellants cite numerous cases in which "purposeful availment" is moderated or even bypassed. O'Neil v. Picillo, 682 F.Supp. 706 (D. R.I. 1988), is particularly instructive. It involved thousands of barrels of volatile, toxic wastes which defendants in one state gave to an intermediary which dumped them in another state. The court used "common sense" (i.e., reasonableness) to find that, "as other courts have recognized, . . . where a defendant deals in such inherently dangerous products, a lesser showing than is ordinarily required will support jurisdiction." O'Neil, 682 F.Supp. at 714, n.1.
There is even doubt whether the State of California parole board and parole officers, in their official capacities, have any personal jurisdiction defense under the fourteenth amendment's due process clause, which protects "persons." Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. , 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), held that neither a state nor state officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which implements § 5 of the fourteenth amendment. Much of the reasoning came from dictionary definitions of "person" from the time the fourteenth amendment was adopted which arguably pertains also to its due process clause. See State v. Cochise County, 73 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3 (11/1/90) (state is not a person in context of county claims statute). Even though Will was actually resolving an eleventh amendment issue, the fact is that the jurisprudence of personal
jurisdiction is enormously complicated and not reducible to a single, predicate test. See C. A. Wright & A. R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d, § 1073 (1987).
Arizona should assert its regulatory interest in this case and take jurisdiction, it appearing, at the least, that gross negligence, if not intentional nonfeasance, is clearly at issue with catastrophic effects in Arizona. The immunity California conferred upon itself for such conduct should not be visited upon Arizona residents. Unaccountability breeds irresponsibility, a standard that Arizona has rejected. That neither California nor the federal government has seen fit to afford a remedy to a problem created by an arrogant bureaucracy should not leave Arizona victims remediless in the name of serving federalism, nor should common sense and justice be frustrated.
If the law says that victims of a highly-dangerous, out-of-state parole violator cannot find redress in their home state against his grossly negligent keepers, I find myself concurring with Mr. Bumble: If the law says that, then the law is "a ass." For the reasons given, I would reverse the summary judgment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|