Court Opinion

ID: 9577763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:51.993103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:14.119529
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — Without acknowledging that they have done so, the majority has retreated from the position which this court took in Golden Gate Hop Ranch, Inc. v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 66 Wn.2d 469, 403 P.2d 351 (cert. denied 382 U.S. 1025). We held in that case that a tortious act is committed in this state, within the meaning of RCW 4.28.185, so as to submit the tort-feasor to the jurisdiction of the state courts, if damage is suffered within this state as a result of the tort-feasor’s negligence, even though the alleged negligent act of the defendant may have occurred outside the state. We did not hold that it was necessary that the tort-feasor should have known that the product would be used.
This court did not suggest in Golden Gate Hop Ranch, Inc. v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., supra, that the occurrence of *891minimal contacts with this state, on the part of the defendant, was necessary in order to imply a submission to jurisdiction. In my opinion, the “minimal contacts” doctrine is an artificial standard by which to establish the propriety of subjecting a resident of another state to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. I do not believe that the manufacturer of an article which may receive, and is intended to receive, nationwide distribution, gives any more thought to the question whether engaging in such a business subjects him to the jurisdiction of the courts of other states than does the seller of an automobile or other single items of merchandise. Incidentally, it seems to me that the seller of an automobile should know that it is more than likely to be driven in other states.
I think the courts can take judicial notice of the fact that ours is an increasingly mobile society. The transaction of interstate business is an ordinary happening, not restricted to the manufacturers of nationally-advertised products. It is obviously not at all uncommon for a negligent act to be committed in one state and the damage to occur in another; and therefore, it is not at all unforeseeable that the damage resulting from negligence can occur outside the neighborhood, city, county or state.
The “constitutional limitations” as set forth in the majority opinion are exceedingly vague to my way of thinking. The precise constitutional provision relied upon is not set forth in the opinion. There is talk about “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” It appears that the trend of the United States Supreme Court has been in the direction of finding those notions less and less restrictive on the jurisdiction of state courts which offer redress to wronged persons. “Traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” take into account hardships on plaintiffs as well as on defendants, and in my opinion, the appropriateness and convenience of the forum should be determined on grounds other than a fictional implied consent on the part of the defendant to be sued there. The proper place for the trial should be a question of venue and not of jurisdiction.
*892In my opinion, the retreat from the straightforward position taken by this court! in the Golden Gate Hop Ranch case, supra, is unjustified on! theory or on the facts of the case. According to the distinction made by the majority, if the purchaser of the automobile had advised the Oregon dealer that he contemplated taking a trip to Washington, the dealer would have impliedly consented to be sued in the courts of this state foi his negligence in inspecting and servicing the car. His only alternative would have been to refuse to sell it, a highljQunlikely possibility. As it was, the dealer escapes the jurisdiction of the Washington courts because of the fortuity that the purchaser was not as talkative as another customer might have been. If I am incorrect in my reading of the majority opinion, and actual knowledge of the defendant (rather than reasonable foreseeability) is not the criteria, then I can only filch from that opinion a holding that large foreign manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of courts in this state when their negligence causes harm, but that small foreign dealers are not. It was heretofore unknown to me that “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” required that large defendants be governed by a different rule of law than that applicable to small defendants.
As far as convenience of the forum is concerned, the defendants in this action would not have to travel as far as did the agents of the Velsicol corporation, and it appears that, as in that case, most of the witnesses are in this state. I assume that is the reason the plaintiffs chose to bring the action here. But if this is not the most convenient forum, objections to it on that basis should be taken in the form of a motion for change of venue, not in an attack on the jurisdiction of the court.
I do not think that the defendants have sustained the burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutional. I would adhere to the interpretation of the statute which we adopted in Golden Gate Hop Ranch, Inc. v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., supra, and reverse the order of dismissal.