MODEL ANSWER
Paul was injured two years ago by a defectively constructed machine while working in an
industrial plant in State A. The machine had been manufactured by Manco, a State B
corporation. Doctor (Doc) treated Paul for his injuries in a State A hospital (Hospital). During
the course of the treatment, Doc prescribed medication to which Paul was allergic. Paul's
condition worsened gradually after that, but it is unclear whether this decline was due to the drug
or to the progression of his injuries.
Paul sued Hospital in a State A state court for negligence. Hospital's defense was (1) that it was
not responsible for the acts of Doc because he was an independent contractor, (2) that Doc had
not been negligent, and (3) that the worsening of Paul's condition had resulted from the injury,
rather than from the medication. After a trial before a judge sitting without a jury, the court ruled
that Doc had not acted negligently and that he was not an agent of Hospital. The court further
ruled that it need not reach the causation issue. No appeal was taken.
Paul later died from his condition, and Wanda, his widow, who had lived in State A for five
years, returned to her original home in State C, located about 1,500 miles from State A. As
executor of Paul's estate, she sued Manco and Doc for the injuries to and death of Paul. The suit
was filed in a State C state court.
Manco sells its products in forty states and has a small sales office in State C. For fifteen years,
Manco has sold its industrial machinery in State C, its sales there having ranged from $400,000
to $500,000 a year. The machine that injured Paul was originally sold to Dealer, located in State
A, who in turn sold it to Paul's employer. Manco was served by mail at its corporate
headquarters as provided for under the State C long arm statute.
Doc lives and practices medicine only in State A but he was personally served with process at an
airport hotel in State C. Doc, who was on a highly-publicized speaking tour, arrived in State C on
the morning of his speech, and left four hours later to speak in another state.
It is undisputed that (1) State C asserts personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the
United States Constitution, and (2) Wanda's suit was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Manco timely moved to dismiss the complaint as to it on the ground that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction over Manco. The motion was denied.
Doc timely moved to dismiss the complaint as to him on the grounds that the court lacked
personal jurisdiction over him. The motion was denied. Subsequently, Doc timely moved to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the suit against him was barred by the principles of res
judicata and collateral estoppel. A certified copy of the judgment in Paul's suit against Hospital
was attached to the motion. The motion was denied.
Did the court rule correctly on:
MODEL ANSWER
jurisdiction, the state's interests in adjudicating the case, and the convenience, or lack thereof, to
the party in adjudicating their case in that jurisdiction.
QUANTITY AND NATURE OF CONTACTS.
Purposeful Availment.
Defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the
forum state, and it must have been foreseeable that they could be sued in the forum state. In the
instant case, Manco has a small sales office in State C and sells approximately $400,000 to
$500,000 annually in State C. Staffing an office and selling almost half a million dollars worth
of goods annually does indicate purposeful availment on Manco's part.
Foreseeability of Suit
Manco could certainly have predicted that it might be sued in State C, given its moderate sales
volume and business activity there. A lawsuit against Manco was foreseeable, due to the fact
that they have an office in the state.
RELATEDNESS OF CONDUCT TO CLAIM.
GENERAL. General jurisdiction exists were an out-of-state defendant has had
systematic and continuous dealings with the forum state, and defendant may be liable for claims
that involve activity outside of the forum state.
SPECIFIC. Specific jurisdiction occurs where defendant has had only limited and
sporadic contact with the forum state, but the cause of action arose out of that activity or specific
act.
The link between the cause of action and the contact of Manco and State C appears tenuous. The
machine in question was sold to a dealer in State A, who sold it to Paul's employer in State A,
where Paul was injured. Wanda moved to State C, only after Paul died. Three is thus a weak
link between the claim and Manco's activities in State C. Further, there appears to be no
indication that specific jurisdiction should apply here, because the activity leading to injury did
not occur in the forum state.
However, Manco had a sales office in State C for fifteen years, indicating a certain level of
systematic and continuous dealings with the forum state, sufficient for general jurisdiction to
apply.
INTEREST OF THE FORUM STATE IN PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS.
A court will also look to how interested the forum state is in protecting the interests of its citizens
in such wrongful behavior as was exhibited by defendant. State C has an interest in protecting its
citizens from injury. Since Manco has relatively significant sales in State C, State C will likely
have a strong interest in ensuring that Manco's products are not defective. This factor weighs
strongly in favor of Wanda.
FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
The notion of fair play and substantial justice looks to whether there are unreasonable burdens
placed upon defendant in defending the claim in the forum state such that defendant will be at a
severe disadvantage in defending the claim in the forum state. This is a judicial determination,
and the court may decide that a situation which otherwise meets the minimum contacts standard,
should not proceed due to undue prejudice to defendant.
Here, State C is is 1,500 miles away from State A. There may be a significant travel burden on
Manco. Alternatively, Manco has offices in 40 states, including State C. It would thus not
offend fair play and substantial justice to have them defend a claim in State C.
In conclusion, sufficient minimum contacts exist so as to establish general jurisdiction over
Manco without violating the U.S. Constitution. Thus, since both the Constitution and the statute
are satisfied, and the court's denial of Manco's motion was correct.
plaintiff
In the instant situation, res judicata is not available Doc because he was not a party to the
original proceeding in State A. The Hospital, not Doc, was the party in that proceeding.
Therefore, there are not the same parties present in both suits, and Doc's claims for res judicata
will fail. The court ruled correctly on this issue.