idaho product liability reform act in considering factors that are applicable only in the context of determining liable liability of the distributor when the manufacturer of a defective product i those factors included the factors that forth and section sixty two that are to be considered by the court only in the context of whether a product seller should be held liable when the manufacturer is present those factors included factors such as did the distributor the intermediate distributor have an opportunity to inspect the product did the intermediate distributor language just by having if i might the official comments to the uniform model product liability act which i know who adopted if this was comments that were drafted by the joint task force that was responsible for an entirely different case than what we're presented with here so you you wouldn't contend that it includes china ocean shipping company whose vessel carried the machine i would suggest that that would be better left to a different day but the contents of that occurre fill with goods from whatever source they can find them because they are committed to the shipper to pay for that space is it your contention that a freight forwarder therefore becomes a product seller every single good that it secures in order to fill a container or that cubic footage on board the ship let me respond first of all i just hypothetical fashion that's fine i want to see how far you want us to go with your debt your broad definition of products a pure freight forwarder who does certain things that perhaps this particular these particular  defendants did not or didn't do freight forwarder who does not do the things that these defendants that may not be subject to the act if all they are doing is stepping in the shoes of a common carrier ok so what did this freight forward correct as a matter of commercial law it was a it was my understanding and i have to admit i'm a little rusty on commercial paper where the actual title for the good is in somebody else's name and the phrase purchased forwarder is holding the documentation of the bill of lading in order to receive the payment which it then forwards on to the seller that that does not constitute the can look at the documentation you've made that part of the record but there are also other facts the other fact is that that not only did you not try and vote the speedway collect fees that all of the transportation fees had previously been plate paid by the manufacturer in china name bo it was a c i s transaction and the court looked at that and said the the record in considered apparently venue this has never been an issue that's been raised below but venue was proper because the injury occurred at that particular location where you're splicing up the transportation from china to ultimate of personal jurisdiction which i believe the court is touching upon can the conduct of the defendants in this case in texas give rise to personal jurisdiction in the state of idaho if one assumes that the introduction into the stream of commerce of  product occurred only in this in houston personal jurisdiction has been waived if we're talking about the votes wiping case and those types of cases the defendant made a voluntary appearance in idaho and i did not dispute personal jurisdiction in the state of idaho the for your injuries shipping and shipping was from houston to idaho not from saying that the shipping from houston to the state of idaho has never been an issue in the in terms of the application of the idaho act the only issues that the only shipping that has minute issue has been the shipping from china into the united states started this was your claim that one of those products arrive so you get the product in houston and you have a user yeah and and it has nothing to do with then the product wears out in houston or becomes absolutely huge then it goes on the top market so in this case disk who introduced it were they a distributor in the introduction of this product into the united states stream of commerce that's the only question there's no evidence of record rift a grudge or the manner in which this particular issue as i understand the state of the maritime licensing laws of freight for forwarder only requires customs brokerage license if they're shipping goods out of the united states nine hundred dollars actually is eight hundred eighty one nine seventeen nine hundred seventeen dollars eight hundred eighty two that relates to estimation carrier charges destination car warehouse into the the packing container before the container is loaded with other goods and put it that's what destination carrier charges are in this situation it's not exactly clear it's precisely what they were  associated with the transportation there really isn't any documents in this case there really isn't any testimony and there really isn't any reason to suggest that supersede transportation and uni liability law in this case the the model act and with all respect to judge beezer we are states is not published comments to any model or uniform act as a matter of policy that's not  somebody else that's in the act i'm going to pay attention to it and i just really made the observation that he's more lax or uniform ass or a v a sponsored x or whatever promotes legislation their views of it  not necessarily controlling when you're talking about of course but i appreciate that it's not only i would indicate however that in our state when and when we're dealing with acts that are promulgated by the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws like uniform commercial code our state often turns to the official comments to an act as an interpretive guide to the meaning of the words that are in the statute in a case such as this where the term distributor is  paraphrase the first is that a chronic seller including a distributor within the meaning of the act does not require a traditional stamp it is the introduction into the stream of commerce those are the operative words and we have cases in the in the predate the adoption in the south telephone or california state of washington illinois that have used identical phraseology manufacturers such as communist china in this particular case where they've made a policy decision that they are not going to permit their manufacturers to be held accountable in american court of law but comments that th purpose of impugning liability to distributors those that introduced the product into the stream of commerce is to give one injured by the use of the product or remedy against any viable defendant and that is a quote from the comments except that it does recognize the common carriers and so the question really for us to the site is is the freight forwarder who arranges the services of the i would ask the court to recognize that there are a number of activities that were that at least there were disputed issues of fact in the record as to that demonstrate conduct that takes this case well beyond the support of the  ex type case the bill of lading issues the fact that they insured themselves for delivery of products that may cause injury to a person the fact that they withheld the product from the purchaser and that they collected  k so the question then i guess for us as in looking at the policy of the law is that is it fair to take a party that collected nine hundred dollars and of which i think a significant portion of that there's no profitability requirement well but but there is and i think the legislature recognize that there is certainly a notion within the statute that it is not unfair to hold people who profit from the sale of the