Choice of Law in Torts and Crimes (part one)

Tort
-derived from French word torquere [to twist]
-an act or omission producing an injury to another w/ any previous existing lawful relation of which the act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident

Anglo-American Law	Spanish
includes Malice and Willful intent	Non-contractual negligence

-Art 20, 2176, NCC: tortfeasor 
…one who, contrary to law, by his act or omission, willfully or negligently causes damage to another and shall indemnify the latter for the same.
1. POLICIES BEHIND CONFLICTS TORT LAW
2 important policies
1. Deter socially undesirable or wrongful conduct
2. Rectify the consequences of the tortuous act by distributing the losses that result from accident and products liability
-most likely to be a strongly held policy of the state - the state would not easily displace its law w/ the law of another state
How to determine applicable law: specific policy behind substantive tort law should be evaluated in the light of the needs of interstate and international systems
e.g. policy of upholding justified expectations of the parties
Minimize the adverse consequences of subjecting party to law of more than 1 state
Discouraging forum shopping
Achieving decisional harmony
*on Justified expectations: in torts cases, the parties to an accident could not have relied on a particular state law since accidents are fortuitous (thus, no intent to have one law applicable eh di naman nya plinano)
-BUT they may nevertheless have anticipated that they may be held liable for some future act and insure against it
-Corp: may expect that the laws of the state where it had continuous and systematic business activities to be applicable in particular circumstances, but no way of complying w/ various laws w/o reincorporating in each state
>>>court should lessen adverse effects of applying laws of several states on parties
Conflicts torts
-when tortuous conduct and place of resulting injury different + one state imposes higher standards than the other state
-when there's difference in product liability laws and varying judicial interpretations of extent of liability
2. LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI (law of the place where the alleged tort was committed)
-determines the tort liability in matters affecting conduct and safety
-Rules w/c regulate conduct w/n state's borders: traffic rules, speed limits
-PROBLEM: when the acts which would produce the injury happens in one state but the injury happens in another
"Place of the wrong"

common law concept	Civil law concept
-looks at the place where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort occurs. -adheres to the vested rights theory so that if the harm does not take place then the tort is not completed. -Negligence or omission is not in itself actionable unless it results in injury to another	-place where the tortious conduct was committed -premised on the principle that the legality or illegality of a person's act should be determined by the law of the state where he is at the time he does such act
Place where injury incurred	Place where tortious conduct made

*but regardless, the traditional view is that an actor liable by the lex loci delicti is liable EVERYWHERE
>vested rights: damages arising from torts committed in one state are actionable in another state
>limits:
• When the forum court's public policy or law is contravened by the proper law
• When the forum does not impose liability on said tortuios act - but this is not a violation of public policy of the forum
Alabama Great Southern RR v. Carroll, supra
-negligent conduct happened in Alabama (where Employer's Liability act allowed recovery from ER), but injury incurred in Mississippi  (where no such law in force). EE claimed before Alabama courts.
-Court held in this case that if the infraction creates a right of action in the forum, then it may be a COA in that forum and may be enforced even outside the forum provided comity allows it. BUT if the injury was inflicted outside the forum, the forum's laws does not allow recovery and since the local law must be ascertained to determine what the claimant's rights are, claimant has no COA in the forum.
…ulit: if COA (i.e. injury) incurred in Alabama where it is actionable by law, then EE had a COA. But since the Alabama law only applies in Alabama, if the COA was incurred out of Alabama then there would be no COA. Injury cannot be claimed in Alabama.
U©V
Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. (brought before NY courts)
Summary: Loucks killed in Massachusetts by negligent act of Standard Oil's employees. However, his heirs are residents of NY, so they brought action before NY courts. NY courts now resolves WON the action may be enforced in NY using Massachusetts law as COA.NY Court held that it was not against NY's public policy to allow the enforcement of a right of action which was granted by a foreign law to the claimants as they had a vested right which the court should help protect.
Facts:
-Everett Loucks was a resident of NY
-he had a wife and kids, who were also residents of NY
-while travelling on a highway in Massachusetts, he was run down and killed through the negligence of defendant Standard Oil Co.'s employee then engaged in its business.
-Massachusetts law allow recovery, so does NY law though not in the same terms

Massachusetts	NY
If a person or corporation…by negligence of its agents or servants while engaged in its business…causes the death of a person who is in the exercise of due care…it shall be liable in damages in the sum of not less than $400, nor more than $10,000...	Gives a civil remedy where death is caused in NY

+ Constitution, Art 1, §18: there shall be some atonement for the wrong - civil remedy where death is caused
-Administrators of Loucks' estate filed action before NY courts
WON Loucks' estate may recover in NY courts on the basis of Mass. Law? YES
1. The heirs have a vested right: though the source of the obligation invoked is a foreign statute which is not the law in NY, the said statute gives rise to an obligation which follows the person and may be enforced wherever the person may be found.
2. On lack of similar legislation in NY: even if NY has no legislation on the subject, or not similar law, it is not enough to show that public policy forbids NY court to enforce the foreign right
-right of action is property: the mere fact that NY does not give a like right is NO REASON FOR REFUSING TO HELP THE PLAINTIFF IN GETTING WHAT BELONGS TO HIM.
-presence/similarity of legislation (in/w/ forum) shows that the foreign statute does not offend public policy of the forum; BUT ABSENCE does not prove that it is against public policy
3. On discretion of the sovereign to aid to the foreign right: wrong!
-not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right at the pleasure of judges
-TEST: not close doors, unless help would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception fo good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of common weal.
4. Test applied: no violation of public policy
5. Thus, court would help them!
-even if NY cannot give the plaintiffs the same judgment (if it was brought before Mass. Courts - probably NY law gives something lower) but it is not reason for refusing to give the plaintiffs what NY courts can give.
-no need to compel plaintiffs to bring action to another state where defendant may not be found, where suit may be impossible
6. Sui generis about death statutes (there's civil remedy for another's death): before it was not that acceptable but is not becoming more acceptable in almost all states, tendency toward a larger comity
7. Fundamental public policy of vested rights: rights lawfully vested shall be everywhere maintained and only exceptional circumstances should lead to the refusal of enforcement
-it would be unreasonable to apply lex loci delicti comissi uniformly independent of fairness to the parties, thus frustrating the ends of justice
U©V
3. MODERN THEORIES ON FOREIGN TORT LIABILITY
1. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
-consider state's contacts w/ the occurrence and the parties:
• Place where the injuries were sustained
• Domicile of the victim/tortfeasor
• Residence  of the victim/tortfeasor
• Nationality of the victim/tortfeasor
• Place where the relationship of the parties are centered
-after considering state's contacts:
1. Identify the interested state
2. Evaluate the relevance of the contacts to the issue in question
-not mechanical counting of factual contacts  BUT localizing the state of the most significant relation and assess the event or transaction in the light of the relevant policy considerations of the interested states and underlying policies
-Bobcock v. Jackson, supra  ©
F: the parties, the car registration, the garage of the car, et al. where all in NY but the accident, and thus the injuries, happened in Ontario. Mr. Jackson, as his defense, claims that since lex loci delicti comissi is in Ontario, and Ontario law provides that liability only attaches if the negligent party is a public transpo operator, he being not a trasnpo operator, he is not liable
H: Other than the place of accident, all of the factors connected w/ the case other than the place of accident occurred in NY. Since the guest-host relationship was formed in NY and involved a trip that commenced and was to terminate there, the court held NY to be the state of the most significant relationship as far as the question of guest-host immunity was in issue
U©V
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA
Summary: A Filipina stewardess was attempted to be raped by fellow male attendants who were Saudi nationals in Indonesia. The complaint for attempted rape was filed but when she got in Saudi Arabia, Saudi authorities questioned her and forced her to drop the charges against the two Saudi nationals. Before she left for Manila, she was brought by ER to courts and made to sign Arabic documents (all in the pretense that it was routine procedure in dropping case against Saudi nationals) but was instead sentenced for adultery and other violations of Islamic laws and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and lashes. With assistance of RP embassy, Saudi officials (*I want to curse here but since this would be posted online, I better not…WTF…) admitted they wrongly accused Filipina. Still, Saudi Arabian Airlines terminated the contract. Filipina filed for damages against airline company in RP courts, which Saudi Arabian Airlines contested, saying that RP lacked substantial interest in the case. Court held that RP courts have jurisdiction since both the plaintiff and defendant claimed reliefs from RP courts, and that RP law is applicable since the injury is in RP and it is of no consequence that the other acts happened abroad (then goes the long long discussion on PRIL)
Mini Digest from A2010 Torts Magic Notes for Finals
FACTS: Morada was employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight attendant. Her two co-workers tried to rape her. She filed a case against them. However, she was pressured to drop the case while her employer’s Chief Legal Officer stood by. She then attended a hearing, after being assured by her employer that it was routinary. She was shocked when she was sentenced to be imprisoned for adultery, going to disco, and socializing with male crew, in violation of Islamic laws, and was sentenced to be lashed. He employer refused to help her.
ISSUE: Morada had cause of action. YES
HELD: Article 19 merely declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. Philippine Law applied because it is where Saudi Arabian deceived Morada. According to her, she honestly believed that her employer would act with justice and give her what is due. Instead, her employer failed to protect her.
 C L A S S N O T E S
• In the context of international law, this case is actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci delicti commisi would be followed, the place where most of the crimes was committed would determine what law should be applied. In this case, most of the violation of rights were committed in SAUDI!
• BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED: no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience shown by either parties if RP + Saudi already submitted to the jurisdiction of QC RTC
• This case demonstrates the broad application of A19 and A21.
• A 19, 20, 21 are not conflicts of law provisions but were applied in a conflicts of law case.
Eto na formally...
Facts:
-Milagros Morada is a flight atttendant for Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA)
-while in Jakarta, she
• Went to disco w/ fellow attendants Thamer and Allah (both Saudi nationals)
• Agreed to have breakfast at Thamer's room where Thamer attempted to rape her after Allah excused himself. Rape was not consumated when hotel staff heard Morada's cries. Thamer and Allah were both arrested
• Saudi government made the Indonesian authorities deport the 2 Saudi nationals only after 2 weeks of detention
• She was transferred to Manila (note: this until the next two paragraphs are important)
-during one of her trips to Jeddah (1992), she was brought to the police who took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. Her passport was returned only after she agreed to drop the case against the 2 Saudi nationals
-In 1993, before she was to return to Manila, a SAUDIA officer brought her to Saudi Court to sign an Arabic document, then later interrogated through an interpreter…all these with the assurance of SAUDIA that it was merely routine procedure necessary to drop the charges against 2 nationals. INSTEAD, SHE WAS SENTENCED TO 5 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND 286 LASHES FOR ADULTERY, GOING TO DISCO AND LISTENING TO MUSIC AND SOCIALIZING W/ MALE CREW, ALL IN VIOLAITONOF ISLAMIC LAW (wtf?)
-RP embassy assisted Morada, eventually Saudi authorities admitted that she had been wrongly convicted
-SAUDIA terminated her contract before she was allowed to return to Manila
-Morada filed COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES vs. SAUDIA
COA: Art 19 & 21, NCC
MTD:
1. RP lacked substantial interest in the case
2. RP courts have no jurisdiction
WON Morada has a COA?
Yes. Though Art 19 merely declares a principle of law, Art 21 gives flesh to its provisions
WON RP Courts could exercise jurisdiction? YES
1. Allowed under Section 1 of RA 7691 (expanded jurisdiction of MTC)
2. Pragmatic considerations: Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
-if dismiss, plaintiff would be compelled to bring her action in Saudi Arabia where she no longer have any substantial connections, thus causing her fundamental unfairness
-no inconvenience and difficulty shown by SAUDIA
-SAUDIA has filed several MTDs on other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction of the court, thus, asked affirmative relief from the court
WON RP Law is the choice of law applicable? YES
1. 2 important questions sought to be answered by choice-of-law problems:
1. What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states
2. To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation
2. Characterization/doctrine of qualification: process  of deciding WON the facts relate to the kind question specified in a conflicts rule
-purpose: enable the forum to select the proper law
…HERE: CHARACTERIZED AS A TORT
3. In tort, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortiuos conduct or lex loci actus occurred
HERE: RP is the place of tort
-Morada was already working in Manila but SAUDIA brought her to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an investigation of the charges she made against the 2 SAUDIA crew members for the attack on her person while they were in Jakarta BUT INSTEAD, she was the one made to face trial for very serious charges, including adultery and violation of Islamic laws and tradition
-SO IT IS IN MANILA where SAUDIA deceived Morada
-Morada honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, "act with justice, give her her due and obeserve honesty and good faith", but SAUDIA failed to protect her
-That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view, what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged according to the private respondent. All told, it is not without basis to identify the Phil. as the situs of the alleged tort.
4. applied MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP rule
-what are the contacts to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance w/ respect to the particular issue
1. Place where the injury occurred
2. Place where the conduct causing injury occurred
3. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of parties
4. Place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered
-as applied in the case:
• Place of injury is RP
• Plaintiff is resident, national of RP
• Respondent is a resident foreign corporation engaged in the business of international air carriage engaged in RP
• Relationship between the parties were entered in RP
5. RP TORTS LAW have paramount application
-Plaintiff has no obligation to prove the applicable SAUDI ARABIAN LAW because her COA was Art 19 and 21 of NCC - it was SAUDIA who was invoking the applicability of Saudi Arabian law so it has the burden to plead and establish it
U©V
2. INTEREST ANALYSIS
-considers the relevant concerns that the state may have in the case and its interest in having its laws applied on that issue
-Determine WON there's a true or false conflict
False conflict: if only 1 state has an interest in having its law applied and failure to apply the other state's law would not impair the policy reflected in that law
True/Apparent conflict: if more than one state has an apparent interest in applying its law to the case
-take a second look at the policies and interests of the concerned states
Cf. Babcock vs. Johnson
In this case, there's only a false conflict:

Ontario law	NY law
policy behind its guest statute: to protect the host from suits by ungrateful guests Protect insurance companies from collusive suits	To make tort-feasor liable for the injury resulting from his negligence
No interest in applying its law when both victim and tortfeasor are non-domiciliaries and other contacts are not in Ontario	NY policy allows recovery to all persons injured even when its domiciliaries act outside the stte

*application of NY law doest not impair policies of Canada
3. CAVERS' PRINCIPLE OF PREFERENCE
*review from Chapter V:
-choice of law should be determined by considerations of justice and social expediency and should not be the result of the mechanical application of a rule or principle of selection
-steps that must be done by the court:
1. Scrutinize the event or transaction
2. Compare carefully the profferred rule of law + result wich its application might work (vs. rules of forum)
3. Appraise results from standpoint of justice and social policy
-principle of preference: conceived to provide a fair accommodation of conflicting state policies and afford fair treatment to the parties caught up in conflicting state policies
-territorialist: look to the place where the significant events occurred or where the legal relationship is centered
Caver's third principle of preference in torts
-deals w/ rules that sanction some kind of conduct engaged in by a plaintiff in 1 state and extends the benefit of this higher standard of conduct and financial protection to the plaintiff even if the state of injury does not create analogous liabilities
U©V
Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel
Summary: Driscoll Hotel illegally sold liquor to Sorrensen in Minnesota, causing the latter to be drunk so that the automobile driven by him wherein Schmidt was a passenger, turned over and thus caused injuries to Schmidt in Wisconsin. MTD for lack of COA: the law does not punish acts the result of which happened in another state. Court held that since all the parties involved are residents of Minnesota and the violation of the respondent occurred in Minnesota, its wrongful conduct was complete in Minnesota, the plaintiff, who is also a resident of Minnesota, should be allowed to recover.
Facts
-Johnson Sorrensen was illegally sold liquor by Driscott Hotel Inc. (doing business as Hook-Em-Cow  Bar and Café) in Minnesota. (probably Sorrensen is a minor)
-Sorrensen became intoxicated before he left the Café.
-Sorrensen, together with Herbert Schmidt (who is a minor), drove towards Wisconsin where the vehicle they were riding turned over, thus causing injuries to Schmidt
-Schmidt, through his mother and natural guardian, sued Driscoll Hotel for selling the liquor illegally to Sorrensen
COA: Minnesota Civil Damage Act: unless the illegal sale in the state was followed by an injury IN THAT STATE, no penalty by way of damages may be recovered (Minnesota laws DO NOT HAVE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT)
TC: Granted MTD
WON Schmidt could recover from the Corporation for its illegal act done in Minnesota when the injuries incurred by him happened in Wisconsin? YES
GR: the place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place. The law of the place of wrong determines whether a person has sustained a legal injury  (Restatement)
-since here, the place of the last event is Wisconsin but Wisconsin has no similar law such as that of Minnesota Civil Damage Act, then Driscoll Hotel should have not been held liable
IN THIS CASE:
2 wrongs to schmidt:
1. By Driscott hotel: sold to sorrenson  intoxicating liquors in violation of MSA  - there's no tort law applicable but even if there was, there was nothing to support a claim that a defendant ever consented to be bound by Wisconsin law
2. By Sorrenson: negligence caused the car to turn over - there might be wisconsin tort law applicable
-however, both interest of Wisconsin and Minnesota would be ineffective if this would be the case!

Wisconsin	Minnesota
Afford remedies it deems proper for those injured there as a result of foreign violations of liquor laws	Admonishing  a liquor dealer whose violation of its statutes was the cause o such injuries and providing the injured party a remedy under Civil damages act

X: when the interests/policy behind the laws would be rendered ineffective!
Here:
• All parties are residents o f Minnesota
• Driscott Hotel was licensed under its laws and required to operate its establishment in compliance w/ Minnesota law
• Plaintiff is a Minnesota citizen
• Violation of Minnesota statute occurred in Minnesota, when, as a result, sorrenson became intoxicated before leaving its establishment
U©V
Ma'am: Schmidt illustrates imposition of liability under a substantive rule of tort law that has a strong underlying admonitory policy
AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICTS TORT LAW
*determination of whether the law where the tort was committed or the law of the domicile of the parties is the controlling law*
Law of where the tort was committed: proper law in questions involving regulation of conduct
Law of the domicile of the parties: governs in matters that relate to loss-distribution or financial protection
Babcock ulit!
-illustration of loss distribution: the guest statute of NY
-parties' domicile would be the issue around which the grant or withholding of damages would center
-A state's loss distribution policy would benefit its domiciliaries even when they act outside the state borders
4. FOREIGN TORT CLAIMS
"Tortiuous liability is Transitory"
-liability resulting from the conduct is "deemed personal to the perpetrator of the wrong, following him wherever he may go, so that compensation may be extracted from him in any proper tribunal which may obtain jurisdiction of the defendant's person
-right to sue not confined in the place where the COA arises
-in short: AN ACTION FOR TORT MAY BE BROUGHT WHEREVER THE TORTFEASOR IS SUBJECT TO SUIT
1. CONDITIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF TORT CLAIMS
When foreign tort given due course in the forum court:
1. The foreign tort is based on a civil action and not on a crime
2. The foreign tort is not contrary to the public policy of the forum
3. The judicial machinery of the forum is adequate to satisfy the claim
Problem: defendant often sued in a foreign court against his will
• Problem of legitimacy of the jurisdiction
• Problem of validity of the decision
2. PRODUCTS LIABILITY OF THE FOREIGN MANUFACTURER
Problem: differences in the laws of states on the
• Basis
• Extent
…of liability for defectively manufactured products
Different basis of liability:
• Negligence
• Strict liability
• Breach of warranty against hidden defects
U©V
Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court of Calif
Summary: Californian citizen sued Taiwanese company for product liability, allegedly because there's a  defect in the make of the motorcycle. Taiwanese company sued Japanese company (Asahi) for indemnification. Court held that there was no minimum contact for the Californian court to exert jurisdiction over the Japanese company for the claim of the Taiwanese company.
Facts
-Californian driver of a motorcycle lost control of his vehicle and collided with a tractor. As a result, he sustained injuries and his wife, who was a passenger of the motorcycle, died
-Californian driver sued Taiwanese company, Cheng Shin, for product liability + death of his wife in California Court
COA: accident was caused by a defect in the make of the motorcycle
-taiwanese company filed cross-complaint vs. the japanese company, asahi metal industry, for indemnification
COA: Asahi was the manufacturer of the tire valve assembly which sold to Cheng Shin and other tire manufacturers the tire valve assembly.
-Cheng shin and the Californian driver settled the case, so only the suit of Cheng Shin against Asahi remains pending
-Asahi filed motion to quash the service of summons on them:
1. California courts could not exert jurisdiction over Asahi based on Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (which provides that the defendant should have established by his own acts minimum contacts with the forum state before the forum state could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant)
2. Asahi never contemplated that its limited sales to the Taiwanese company in Taiwan would subject it to lawsuit in California
-SC found that exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi was consistent w/ due process clause so Asahi appealed
WON California courts could exercise jurisdiction over Asahi, a Japanese corporation? NO
1. What does the Due Process Clause require: that the defendant PURPOSELY established "minimum contacts" in the forum state *
2. Are there MINIMUM CONTACTS?
1. Definition: some act by which the defendant avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities w/n the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws
-the acts should be by the defendant itself
2. The placement f a product into the stream of commerce, w/o more, is not an act of the defendant purposely directed toward the forum state!
• What could have been considered purposeful acts of the defendant corporation:
• Designing the product for the market in the forum state
• Advertising in the forum state
• Establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum state
• Marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum
• Awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum state DOES NOT convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposely directed toward the forum state
3. Cheng Shin failed to prove that Asahi purposely did acts to fully avail itself of the California market:
• No office, agents, employees or property in California
• No advertisement or otherwise solicitation of business in california
• No distribution system
• No designed product for California market
3. Due Process clause forbids a state from exercising personal jurisdiction on a Foreign defendant when it would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
-unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders
-HERE: Asahi had to travel all the way from Japan to California and submit its dispute w/ Cheng Shin in a foreign nation's judicial system when
• Transaction on which the indemnification claim is based took place in Taiwan
• Asahi's components were shipped from Japan to Taiwan
• No demonstration that it is more convenient to try the case in California rather than either in Japan or Taiwan
U©V
Societe Nationale Industrille Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak (Helicopter Crash Case)
Facts: Helicopter
• owned by English Corporation
• Manufactured by Aerospatiale (French Company), which sold its helicopters in Texas
• Serviced and operated by a Malaysian Company
• Crashed in Brunei, killing a Brunei resident
-widow of Brunei resident sued Malaysian and French company in TEXAS
Why: Texas law more favorable on products liability
+ higher amount of damages awarded
• Defendants filed MTD based on Forum Non Conveniens
• TC denied MTD
-French Company then filed IN BRUNEI proceedings to enjoin plaintiffs from continuing in Texas Case (Injunction)
HELD:
1. Brunei was the natural forum for the Trial of the action
2. It would be oppressive for the plaintiffs (who were Brunei nationals) to continue w/ the Texas Proceedings
3. French company would not be able to pursue Legal proceedings against Malaysian Company (bakit?)
U©V
Bier v Mines de Potasse d' Alsac (pollution of the Rhine River Case)
Facts: Bier sued Mines de Potasse d' Alsac in Dutch courtalleging that the discharge made by Alsac in the Rhine river caused pollution damage
-BIER: a Dutch Market gardener who used water from Rhine river to irrigate his field and nurseries in Rotterdam
WON Dutch Courts can exercise jurisdiction in accordance w/ Art 5(3) of the Brussels convention?
Cause of harm: in France
Effect of the cause: in Netherlands
DUTCH COURT: Dutch court had no jurisdiction !
European Court: Bier could sue in Either the place where the damage occurred or where the commission of the acts that gave rise to it were done, at his election
SOVEREIGNTY AS BASIS OF JURISDICTION
-judicial, legislative and administrative competence
-problem: when one state exercises jurisdiction over a person who is not its national
-Common law courts: used the SOVEREIGNTY MODEL to either
1. Justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant present w/n the territory, however short (tag jurisdiction)
2. Deny enforcement of a foreign court judgment over a defendant who was not present w/n the court's jurisdiction
PENNOYER v. NEFF: No state can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons and property not w/n its territory
U©V
Worldwide Volkswagen Corporation v. Charles Woodson
Summary: Volkswagen
Facts:
-Sps Harry and Kay Robinson are residents of NY
=The SPs bought a AUDI from Seaway Volkswagen (Retailer Corp), a retailer of Worldwide Volkswagen Corp (Intl Corp) in NY.
-Both Retailer and Intl Corp are incorporated and are doing business in NY
-the sps incurred injuries allegedly due to the defective design and placement of their automobile's gas tank and fuel system in Oklahoma.
-the suit was brought before OKLAHOMA Court against Retailer and Intl Corporation
>MTD: no jurisdiction, violates Due Process clause (as was discussed earlier in the Asahi Case)
>TC: denied MTD
>SC of Oklahoma: personal jurisdiction was authorized by Oklahoma's "Long-arm" statute allowing an Oklahoma court's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a tortfeasor who causes injury in Oklahoma by an act or omission outside Oklahoma "if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in Oklahoma.
WON Oklahoma Courts could exercise jurisdiction? NO!
A State may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as THERE EXIST "MINIMUM CONTACTS" BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT ND THE FORUM STATE (citing International shoe)
1. Functions of Minimum Contact Concept
1. Protect the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant, inconvenient forum
-reasonableness or fairness should be observed (refer to Asahi case)
2. Act to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system
2. Due Process Clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant w/ which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations
-it may sometimes divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment
3. HERE: TOTAL ABSENCE OF MINIMAL CONTACT
• No sales
• No services performed in Oklahoma
• No privileges and benefits availed from Oklahoma
• No business solicited either through salesperson or through advertising reasonably calculated to reach the state
• NO regular sales to Oklahoma customers or residents
• Nor was it shown that the defendants sough to serve or are serving the Oklahoma market
CAN'T BASE JURISDICTION ON A SINGLE ISOLATED OCCURRENCE WHEN THE CAR PURCHASED BY NY RESIDENTS FROM AN NY CORPORATION PASSED BY OKLAHOMA
4. Foreseeability argument not sustained: it was argued that because an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose, it was "forseeable" that the Robinsons' Audi would cause injury in Oklahoma  - but this was held to be not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction