World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

585 P.2d 351 (Okla. 1978)

Facts:

  • In Sept. 1977, an Audi automobile holding Kay Eloise Robinson and her two children was struck in the rear by another car.
  • The gas tank of the Audi ruptured and caused a fire in the passenger compartment, injuring Robinson and her two children. 

Procedural History:

  • Mrs. Robinson and her family brought manufacturers products liability actions against WWV and three other defendants.
  • Respondent, Judge Woodson, the trial judge wants to serve petitioner under the Oklahoma Long Arm Statute (OLAS).
  • Petitioner is seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Woodson from exercising personal jurisdiction over them through the OLAS.

Assertion of jurisdiction does not violate DP. Writ of prohibition denied. 

Issue:

Whether the use of the OLAS to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation violates its due process rights. 

Holding:

The use of the OLAS to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation does NOT violate its due process rights because the exercise of jurisdiction complied with the statute and this exercise is consistent with constitutional due process.

Rule:

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation is allowed if (1) the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by statute and (2) this exercise is consistent with constitutional due process. 

Reasoning:

* The test for applying the OLAS is to determine:

  1. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by statute
  2. Whether this exercise is consistent with constitutional due process

* 1. Was jurisdiction allowed by OALS?

(Title 12 O.S.1971, s 1701.03):

  1. a) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s:

“(1) * * *

“(2) * * *

“(3) causing tortious injury in this state By an act or omission in this state ;

“(4) causing tortious injury in this state By an act or omission outside this state If he (a) regularly does or (b) solicits business or (c) engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or (d) derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state ; * * *.” (Emphasis added)

  • 3 of the statute does not apply because the defects were present at the time the car left WWV’s hands, outside of Oklahoma. Therefore, the act or omission was not committed within the sate.

[This is different from the case cited by respondents (p.113) because this was a case in Illinois, and in this state the statue assigns liability if there is an injury within the state, but in Oklahoma, the act that caused the injury must be committed within the state.

  • 4 of the statute does apply because WWV could foresee the use of cars they sold in Oklahoma, especially since they hold exclusive rights to sell these cars in 3 states. It is also not unreasonable to infer that they “derive substantial revenue” from cars used in Oklahoma.

* 2. Was the exercise of jurisdiction under OLAS consistent with constitutional due process?

The court’s assertion does not violate due process.

Court’s Order:

Assertion of jurisdiction does not violate DP