Title: Brown v. Cal Dykstra Equipment Co., Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Brown v. Cal Dykstra Equipment Co., Inc. (98-425); 169 Vt. 636; 740 A.2d 793

[Filed 24-Aug-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-425

                               MAY TERM, 1999

Keith E. Brown, d/b/a	               }	APPEALED FROM:
Precision Crane Service	               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	Caledonia Superior Court
	                               }	
Cal Dykstra Equipment Company, Inc.    }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 95-4-96 Cacv

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1), of the
  superior court's  decision to deny the motion of defendant, Cal Dykstra
  Equipment Co., to dismiss for lack of  personal jurisdiction.  Plaintiff
  Keith E. Brown, d/b/a/ Precision Crane Service, a Vermont  resident,
  brought suit against defendant, a Wisconsin corporation, for fraud stemming
  from the  sale of a crane.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that its
  contacts with Vermont were  insufficient to allow jurisdiction over it in
  Vermont courts. The superior court ruled that  defendant's contacts were
  sufficient to support personal jurisdiction consistent with federal due 
  process requirements.  We affirm.
	
       Defendant sells heavy equipment and advertises in Machinery Trader, a
  national magazine.  Plaintiff, who runs a crane service, saw defendant's
  Machinery Trader advertisement listing a  particular crane for sale and
  called to purchase it.  The crane had been sold, but plaintiff asked 
  defendant to find a crane for him meeting certain specifications. 
  Defendant found a crane, and  after examining it in Wisconsin, plaintiff
  purchased it, taking delivery in New Hampshire  because he was working on a
  job there.  The crane did not meet plaintiff's needs and plaintiff  sued
  defendant in Vermont, seeking damages for breach of warranty and
  misrepresentation.

       The issue before us is whether the above facts are sufficient to
  establish long-arm  jurisdiction over defendant in Vermont. Under the
  pertinent Vermont long-arm statute, Vermont  courts have jurisdiction over
  an out-of-state corporation if it is deemed to be doing business in 
  Vermont and the proceeding arises out of the corporation's contacts with
  the state.  An out-of-state corporation is deemed to be doing business in
  Vermont if the contact with the state is  sufficient to support a Vermont
  personal judgment against it.  See 12 V.S.A. § 855.  This statute 
  "reflects a clear policy to assert jurisdiction over individual defendants
  to the full extent  permitted by the Due Process Clause."  Northern
  Aircraft v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 40, 572 A.2d 1382, 1385 (1990).  As a
  result, personal jurisdiction over defendant is appropriate when there  are
  "certain minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of
  the suit does not  offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
  justice."  Dall v. Kaylor, 163 Vt. 274, 275,