Opinion ID: 2833512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Committing a Tort “in” Texas

Text: The court of appeals relied most heavily on the first ground C Holten’s allegation that Michiana committed a tort in Texas. Allegations that a tort was committed in Texas satisfy the Texas Long-Arm Statute, [60] but not necessarily the U.S. Constitution; the broad language of the former extends only as far as the latter will permit. [61] Thus, for example, the plaintiffs in both Woodson and CMMC alleged torts, and the defendants surely foresaw that defective products could harm local buyers C but in neither case was that enough to establish jurisdiction. [62] The court below joined many of its sister courts in stating the following as a rule of jurisdiction: “If a tortfeasor knows that the brunt of the injury will be felt by a particular resident in the forum state, he must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there to answer for his actions.” [63] But neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever said so. To the contrary, twenty years ago the United States Supreme Court wrote: “Although it has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts there when policy considerations so require, the Court has consistently held that this kind of foreseeability is not a ‘sufficient benchmark’ for exercising personal jurisdiction.” [64] This Court too has expressly rejected jurisdiction “based solely upon the effects or consequences of an alleged conspiracy” in the forum state. [65] Instead, it is “the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum” that are critical. [66] It is true that on one occasion the United States Supreme Court found specific jurisdiction based on alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at a forum resident. In Calder v. Jones , a reporter and editor collaborated on an allegedly defamatory article, but they did so knowing the article was for their employer, the National Enquirer , which sold more than 600,000 copies in the forum state every week. [67] Whether or not a jury found the article defamatory, there was no question the defendant’s article constituted a substantial “presence” in the state. Texas courts that base jurisdiction on torts committed during the receipt of an out-of-state phone call apparently assume that Calder would have come out the same way if the defamation had occurred in a single unsolicited phone call a nonresident answered from a single private individual in the forum state. But if “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum” must play a critical role, the two cases cannot be the same. A companion case decided by the same Court on the same day as Calder shows that the important factor was the extent of the defendant’s activities, not merely the residence of the victim. In Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc ., the victim of another allegedly defamatory article sued not in the state where she lived, but in a different state with a longer statute of limitations. [68] Noting that the defendant had sold more than 10,000 copies of its magazine every month in the forum state, the Supreme Court held that “it must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” [69] Our dissenting colleagues cite no other authority that a single conversation with a private citizen constitutes purposeful availment of any jurisdiction in which that citizen happens to live. While torts were alleged in some of the cases cited in the dissent, the defendant’s conduct in each case was much more extensive and was aimed at getting extensive business in or from the forum state. [70] Exercising jurisdiction here would go far beyond anything we have approved in other tort cases.