Opinion ID: 1611991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Applicability of the Stream-of-Commerce Theory and Alloy Wheels

Text: Brown insists that the test adopted in Alloy Wheels conflicts with an opinion of the United States Supreme Court, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), which she characterizes as binding precedent. She urges this Court to overrule Alloy Wheels. We decline to do so, because this case involves neither the stream-of-commerce theory of the Brennan plurality nor the stream-of-commerce-plus theory of the O'Connor plurality as adopted in Alloy Wheels. The source of both versions of the stream-of-commerce doctrine, which divided the Asahi Court, is dictum in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson . In Woodson, New York residents Harry Robinson and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Seaway), a retail dealer in Massena, N.Y. 444 U.S. at 288, 100 S.Ct. 559. The regional distributor for Audi automobileswhich served the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticutwas World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation (World-Wide). Id. at 288-89, 100 S.Ct. 559. The automobile was manufactured by Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi) and was imported by Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen). 444 U.S. at 288, 100 S.Ct. 559. The following year, the Robinsons were driving through Oklahoma when their automobile collided with another vehicle. The impact created a fire, and Kay Robinson and the Robinsons' two children were injured. The Robinsons subsequently brought a products-liability action in the District Court for Creek County, Okla., claiming that their injuries resulted from defective design and placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system. 444 U.S. at 288, 100 S.Ct. 559. Defendants named in the suit were (1) Seaway, (2) World-Wide, (3) Audi, and (4) Volkswagen. Id. The New York defendants, Seaway and World-Wide, contested the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them in Oklahoma. Specifically, they sought a writ of prohibition restraining the trial judge from exercising in personam jurisdiction. 444 U.S. at 289, 100 S.Ct. 559. From the denial of that relief in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, they sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, holding that the unilateral activity of the New York residents in driving a car they had purchased from a New York retailer to Oklahoma did not constitute contacts sufficient to subject the New York retailer and distributor to suit in Oklahoma. 444 U.S. at 299, 100 S.Ct. 559. In the course of its discussion, the Court stated: [I]f the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor ... is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others. The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. Cf. Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961). 444 U.S. at 297-98, 100 S.Ct. 559 (emphasis added). This language in Woodson has been correctly characterized as dicta, because there was in Woodson no such manufacturer or importer before the Court contesting jurisdiction. See Nelson v. Park Indus., Inc., 717 F.2d 1120, 1124-25 (7th Cir.1983); Spartan Motors, Inc. v. Lube Power, Inc., 337 Ill.App.3d 556, 564, 786 N.E.2d 613, 620, 272 Ill.Dec. 74, 81 (2003); Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 731 So.2d 881, 887 (La.1999); Juelich v. Yamazaki Mazak Optonics Corp., 682 N.W.2d 565, 571 n. 4 (Minn.2004); and Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex.1985). Nevertheless, the language served as the foundation for both plurality opinions in Asahi. The point of disagreement between the authors of those plurality opinions was whether jurisdiction may turn on the mere foreseeability that the seller's product would enter the forum state. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 111-12, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (due process requires something more than mere foreseeability (per O'Connor, J.)); 480 U.S. at 117, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (defendant need only be aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State (per Brennan, J.)). Thus, the stream-of-commerce doctrine contemplates that the offending product will have been sold by a participant in the process with, at a minimum, the awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State. 480 U.S. at 116-17, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (Brennan, J.). The stream of commerce refers not to unpredictable currents or eddies, but to the regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 117, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (Brennan, J.) (emphasis added). In this case, the subject hoist found its way into Alabama, not by a regular and anticipated flow, but through unpredictable currents or eddies. It was a model that was not authorized for sale in the United States. Based on Vom Stein's affidavit and deposition, the trial court found that neither Kaverit, ABUS's customer in Canada, nor EMH, ABUS's American distributor in Ohio, was authorized to sell the GM 7000 model hoist in the United States. Instead, Kaverit purchased the hoist in Germany with the understanding that it would not place it in the stream of commerce in the United States. In spite of this agreement, Kaverit apparently sold the hoist to Wolverine, which, in turn, incorporated it into the crane system that was installed at the SRT job site where Brown's husband was working. Under these uncontroverted facts, ABUS had no awareness that the stream of commerce [might] or [could] sweep the product into [Alabama]. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 116-17, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (Brennan, J.). The hoist was, therefore, not within the stream of commerce, as defined by any test proposed in Asahi. See Simeone v. Bombardier-Rotax GmbH, 360 F.Supp.2d 665, 672 (E.D.Pa.2005) (plaintiffs in a product-liability action against the foreign manufacturer of airplane engines could not assert in personam jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce theory, where the particular engine that was the subject of the action had not entered the United States through the distribution channels the manufacturer had established to serve the market in the United States, there being no connection between the activities that [the manufacturer] purposefully directed at Pennsylvania and the accident that ultimately occurred). It is fundamental that the Due Process Clause... gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit. Woodson, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559. Although this Court does not currently operate within the framework of the Brennan plurality, see Alloy Wheels, supra, it recently signaled a willingness to revisit the issue in the appropriate case. See Ex parte Duck Boo, 985 So.2d at 911-12. According to Brown, this is such a case; we disagree. Alloy Wheels was a typical stream-of-commerce case. The foreign defendant contesting jurisdiction manufactured aluminum alloy wheels in the United Kingdom (the UK). 882 So.2d at 825. Those wheels were installed on Landrover Discovery sport-utility vehicles in the UK. Id. Nevertheless, the manufacturer anticipated that some of its wheels would be used on `vehicles to be exported to the United States.' 882 So.2d at 824. Indeed, one such vehicle was involved in an automobile accident that formed the basis of the plaintiff's product-liability action against the foreign manufacturer. Thus, the offending product in that case was placed within the stream of commerce. For these reasons, the jurisdictional discussions in Alloy Wheels and Ex parte Duck Boo shed little light on this case. In short, Brown's theory of jurisdiction over ABUSthe stream-of-commerce doctrine is inapplicable. For all that appears, the subject hoist was the only specimen of the GM 7000 model that ever entered the United States. Thus, because the accident arose out of a single contact that is functionally irrelevant under the stream-of-commerce doctrine, that contact affords an insufficient basis for jurisdiction over ABUS.