Wesley Frye, as personal representative of the estate of Rhonda Rainey, deceased; andRoderick Stacy Arthur, as the father and next friend of Ryan Arthur and Roderick Arthur,minors v. John F. Smith, Harry J. Pearce, and Michael Losh

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1091386 W e s l e y F r y e , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e e s t a t e o f Rhonda R a i n e y , d e c e a s e d ; and R o d e r i c k S t a c y A r t h u r , as t h e f a t h e r and n e x t f r i e n d o f Ryan A r t h u r and R o d e r i c k A r t h u r , minors v. John F . Smith, Appeal COBB, C h i e f Harry J . Pearce, from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-08-900205) as p e r s o n a l Court representative Rhonda R a i n e y , d e c e a s e d , and R o d e r i c k next Losh Justice. Wesley Frye, and and M i c h a e l friend o f Ryan Arthur Stacy of theestate of Arthur, and Roderick as f a t h e r Arthur, minors 1091386 ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , "the p l a i n t i f f s " ) , Calhoun Smith, Circuit Court d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r J r . , Harry J. Pearce, and l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . the order of the Calhoun supplement appeal from the order of the the r e c o r d on J. Michael Losh The Circuit c l a i m s a g a i n s t John plaintiffs based also on We a challenge Court denying t h e i r motion appeal. F. to affirm. Facts On or about June 19, 2006, Rhonda Rainey R o d e r i c k A r t h u r a n d R y a n A r t h u r w e r e i n v o l v e d i n an a c c i d e n t w h i l e t h e y were p a s s e n g e r s sport-utility Rhonda's vehicle husband being and driven Roderick's R o d e r i c k and Ryan were i n j u r e d , injuries s u s t a i n e d i n the plaintiffs naming as filed the plaintiffs of the dealer sought by and in the On Christopher Ryan's June Motors Rainey, stepfather. Blazer, and Massey sold the Raineys 17, 2008, Circuit of the Court C o r p o r a t i o n ("GM"), the Chevrolet-Olds-Geo, the damages f o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h for personal injuries automobile Chevrolet Blazer Calhoun General who minors and R a i n e y d i e d as a r e s u l t accident. complaint defendants manufacturer Inc., a i n a 1998 and Blazer. The as t o R h o n d a and as t o R o d e r i c k a n d R y a n , a l l e g i n g c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e and b r e a c h of w a r r a n t y , 2 as w e l l as c l a i m s u n d e r 1091386 the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's L i a b i l i t y D o c t r i n e ("the AEMLD"). On J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , GM United filed Court States Bankruptcy New Y o r k , a notice f o r the Southern thereby invoking of bankruptcy the automatic stay i n the District of codified a t 11 amended their U.S.C. § 3 6 2 . On September complaint 22, to state 2009, GM; H a r r y plaintiffs claims against the f o l l o w i n g J o h n F. S m i t h , J r . , f o r m e r of the J. Pearce, chairman former of the board vice chairman o f GM; and J . M i c h a e l Losh, former president of (Smith, Losh referred t o as " t h e i n d i v i d u a l On N o v e m b e r dismiss the individual 2, 2 0 0 9 , claims jurisdiction. In 9, 2 0 0 9 , on t h e i n d i v i d u a l 2009, hearing the until are vice hereinafter defendants them for the motion of s u b m i t t e d an the t r i a l defendants' motion to of personal dismiss, the affidavit. to dismiss. moved after individual 3 lack moved t o court s e t a h e a r i n g date plaintiffs the executive of defendants"). against each and the i n d i v i d u a l support defendants On N o v e m b e r 18, Pearce, of d i r e c t o r s of the board directors GM individuals: for a On N o v e m b e r continuance defendants of the served a 1091386 response to i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s propounded November motion On 25, 2010, t h e t r i a l court by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . granted the On plaintiffs' f o r a continuance. November amendment t o t h e i r 23, 2010, the p l a i n t i f f s complaint. filed a second I n i t , t h e y made t h e f o l l o w i n g allegations: " T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t J o h n F. S m i t h , J r . was C h a i r m a n of t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s o f [ G M ] f r o m J a n u a r y 1996 t o May 2 0 0 3 , s e r v e d a s C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r o f s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n f r o m November 1992 t o J u n e 2 0 0 0 , a n d was P r e s i d e n t o f same f r o m A p r i l 1992 t o O c t o b e r 1998. "... T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t H a r r y J . P e a r c e was V i c e Chairman o f [ G M ] a n d a member o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s o f same f r o m 1 9 9 6 t o 2 0 0 1 . "... T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t J . M i c h a e l L o s h was E x e c u t i v e V i c e P r e s i d e n t and C h i e f F i n a n c i a l O f f i c e r o f [GM] f r o m 1994 t o 2 0 0 0 . "... T h a t [ t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s ] h e l d s a i d p o s i t i o n s i n t h e c o r p o r a t e b u s i n e s s as s e t o u t i n the n e x t p r e c e d i n g t h r e e p a r a g r a p h s d u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t t h e 1998 m o d e l B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s , l i k e a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e one w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s s u i t , were d e s i g n e d , m a n u f a c t u r e d , marketed and p l a c e d i n the s t r e a m o f commerce i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f t h e corporate business. "That by v i r t u e o f t h e i r s a i d p o s i t i o n s , said defendant officers had affirmative official r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e management and c o n t r o l o f t h e c o r p o r a t e b u s i n e s s a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e 1998 m o d e l B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s , l i k e a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e one w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s s u i t , were d e s i g n e d , 4 1091386 manufactured, commerce in business. m a r k e t e d and p l a c e d i n t h e s t r e a m o f the regular course of corporate "... T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t o f f i c e r s k n e w o r s h o u l d have known a t t h e t i m e s a i d v e h i c l e s were d e s i g n e d , m a n u f a c t u r e d , m a r k e t e d and p l a c e d i n t h e s t r e a m o f commerce i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f t h e corporate b u s i n e s s t h a t s a i d 1998 m o d e l B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s were d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y dangerous because o f those design defects as a l l e g e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint. "... T h a t t h e c o r p o r a t e b u s i n e s s and t h e s a i d defendant o f f i c e r s had the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e s a i d 1998 m o d e l B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s w o u l d b e p u r c h a s e d b y c o n s u m e r s i n A l a b a m a a n d t h e 1998 m o d e l m o t o r vehicle which i s the subject of t h i s suit was p u r c h a s e d by a consumer i n Alabama. "... T h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e 1 998 m o d e l Blazer m o t o r v e h i c l e s were p l a c e d i n t h e s t r e a m o f commerce and thereafter during the time that the said defendant o f f i c e r s held t h e i r a f o r e s a i d p o s i t i o n s with the corporate business, the said defendant o f f i c e r s knew o r s h o u l d have known by v i r t u e o f lawsuits, judgments, settlements, tests, crash tests, reports, studies, complaints or otherwise t h a t s a i d 1998 m o d e l B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s were d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y dangerous i n r e g a r d t o t h o s e d e f e c t s as a l l e g e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l complaint. "... T h a t t h e c o r p o r a t e b u s i n e s s and t h e s a i d d e f e n d a n t o f f i c e r s , s e p a r a t e l y and s e v e r a l l y , had the expectation t h a t t h e s a i d 1998 m o d e l Blazer m o t o r v e h i c l e s w o u l d be p u r c h a s e d b y c o n s u m e r s i n 5 1091386 Alabama and t h e motor v e h i c l e t h a t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s s u i t was p u r c h a s e d i n A l a b a m a . " On December moved t o d i s m i s s jurisdiction motion. and 18, 2010, the claims submitted In his affidavit, the i n d i v i d u a l against again them f o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l affidavits Smith defendants in support of stated: " I was C h a i r m a n o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s o f [GM] from January 1996 t o May 2O03, I a l s o s e r v e d as C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r f r o m N o v e m b e r 1992 t o J u n e 2 0 0 0 a n d was P r e s i d e n t f r o m A p r i l 1992 t o O c t o b e r 1998. "... I n my r o l e s a s C h a i r m a n o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s , C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and P r e s i d e n t o f [GM], I h a d no d i r e c t i n v o l v e m e n t i n or immediate responsibility f o r the engineering, design, or p r o d u c t d e v e l o p m e n t f u n c t i o n s o f [GM], i n c l u d i n g t h e design, manufacture, t e s t i n g , marketing, or p l a c i n g into the stream o f commerce o f 1998 Chevrolet B l a z e r s . As t h e C h a i r m a n o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s , Chief Executive Officer, and President, my 'affirmative o f f i c i a l responsibilit[ies]' d i d not include or involve d i r e c t review of the engineering, d e s i g n , a n d o t h e r p r o d u c t d e v e l o p m e n t d e c i s i o n s made regarding the design, manufacture, testing, marketing, o r p l a c i n g i n t o t h e s t r e a m o f commerce 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r s . "... A t t h e t i m e t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r was p l a c e d i n t o t h e s t r e a m o f c o m m e r c e b y [ G M ] , I h a d no knowledge of any l a w s u i t s , judgements, s e t t l e m e n t s , t e s t s , crash t e s t s , reports, studies, complaints, or a n y o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c a u s e d me t o b e l i e v e t h a t the 1998 Chevrolet Blazer was defective or u n r e a s o n a b l y d a n g e r o u s o r l i k e l y t o be d a n g e r o u s i n any manner w h a t s o e v e r , i n c l u d i n g t h e manner a l l e g e d by [ t h e ] P l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s l a w s u i t . I a l s o have n o t 6 the 1091386 b e e n made a w a r e o f a n y f a c t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n s i n c e t h e 1998 m o d e l y e a r C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r s were p l a c e d i n t o t h e s t r e a m o f c o m m e r c e t h a t h a s c a u s e d me t o believe that those vehicles are defective or unreasonably dangerous as alleged in [the] P l a i n t i f f s ' Amended C o m p l a i n t s . I n my r o l e s as Chairman of the Board of D i r e c t o r s , Chief E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and P r e s i d e n t o f [ G M ] , my ' a f f i r m a t i v e official responsibilit[ies]' d i d not include r e v i e w i n g t h e e n g i n e e r i n g , d e s i g n , and other product development decisions made during the design, e n g i n e e r i n g , m a n u f a c t u r e , t e s t i n g , m a r k e t i n g , and placing into t h e s t r e a m o f commerce o f s p e c i f i c m o d e l s o f [ G M ] c a r s a n d t r u c k s , a n d I was n e v e r a s k e d o r c a l l e d upon t o r e v i e w any such d e c i s i o n s made r e l a t i n g t o t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r . "... I n my r o l e s a s C h a i r m a n o f T h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s , C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and P r e s i d e n t o f [GM], I was not personally involved i n or r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a u t h o r i z i n g o r d i r e c t i n g t h a t any w a r n i n g s be p r o v i d e d o r n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e 1998 Chevrolet B l a z e r . I t was n o t w i t h i n my 'official a f f i r m a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t [ i e s ] [ ' ] as Chairman o f t h e Board of D i r e c t o r s , Chief Executive O f f i c e r , or P r e s i d e n t t o decide whether or not s p e c i f i c warnings were p r o v i d e d w i t h [ G M ] v e h i c l e s o r what t h e c o n t e n t of those warnings should b e . "... I n my r o l e s a s C h a i r m a n o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s , C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , and P r e s i d e n t o f [GM], I a l s o was n o t p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n o r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a u t h o r i z i n g o r d i r e c t i n g t h a t any r e c a l l be i n i t i a t e d o r n o t i n i t i a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r . I t was n o t w i t h i n my 'official affirmative responsibilit[ies]['] as Chairman of the Board of D i r e c t o r s , Chief E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r , or P r e s i d e n t to decide whether or not t o r e c a l l [GM] v e h i c l e s . " 7 1091386 Pearce and Losh submitted affidavits above a f f i d a v i t s u b m i t t e d by S m i t h , w i t h affiant's and affiant at names the titles a l s o accompanied the the e x c e p t i o n of the the p o s i t i o n s held by from the i n d i v i d u a l the defendants t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s ' D e c e m b e r 18, to dismiss. following to GM. A second set of a f f i d a v i t s motion of identical In Smith's second affidavit, he made statements: "I currently reside in Florida. I have never maintained a residence in Alabama or owned p o s s e s s e d , o r r e g u l a r l y u s e d any r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n Alabama. I have never p a i d t a x e s i n A l a b a m a a n d am n o t r e g i s t e r e d t o v o t e i n A l a b a m a . I do n o t r e g u l a r l y t r a v e l t o A l a b a m a . "... I c a n r e c a l l b e i n g i n A l a b a m a o n l y one t i m e i n my l i f e . I g a v e a s p e e c h a t A u b u r n University some t i m e i n t h e m i d 2 0 0 0 s , a f t e r my r e t i r e m e n t f r o m [GM]. My s p e e c h a t A u b u r n U n i v e r s i t y h a d n o t h i n g t o do with the design, development, testing, m a n u f a c t u r e , a d v e r t i s i n g , o r s a l e s o f 1998 C h e v r o l e t Blazers. "... I h a v e n e v e r h a d a n y d i r e c t communications with any individual in the State of Alabama r e g a r d i n g t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r . "... I was e m p l o y e d a t [GM] f r o m 1961 t o 2 0 0 3 . During the time p e r i o d that I h e l d the p o s i t i o n s r e f e r e n c e d i n [ t h e ] P l a i n t i f f s ' Amended C o m p l a i n t , my titles a n d p o s i t i o n s w e r e as f o l l o w s : I was Chairman of the Board of D i r e c t o r s of [GM] from J a n u a r y 1996 t o May 2 0 0 3 . I a l s o s e r v e d a s C h i e f 8 2010, the 1091386 E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r f r o m N o v e m b e r 1 992 t o J u n e 2 0 0 0 a n d was P r e s i d e n t f r o m A p r i l 1 9 9 2 t o O c t o b e r 1 9 9 8 . "... A t no t i m e d u r i n g my e m p l o y m e n t a t [GM] was I p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d as t h e R e l e a s e E n g i n e e r o r Chief Engineer charged with release r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the design, development, manufacture, or t e s t i n g o f a n y [GM] c a r , t r u c k , o r s p o r t u t i l i t y v e h i c l e . I , l i k e w i s e , was n e v e r p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d a s a R e l e a s e Engineer o r an e n g i n e e r o t h e r w i s e charged with release r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o rthe design, development, manufacture, or t e s t i n g of the roof, seat, s e a t b e l t system, o r h a n d l i n g and s t a b i l i t y systems used by [GM] i n a n y c a r , t r u c k , o r s p o r t u t i l i t y v e h i c l e . "... I n e v e r made a n y d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g a n y s p e c i f i c [GM] v e h i c l e o r l i n e o f v e h i c l e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e 1 9 9 8 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r , t h a t was s p e c i f i c a l l y o r u n i q u e l y r e l a t e d t o GM's b u s i n e s s w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a . I n e v e r made a n y d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g a n y s p e c i f i c [GM] v e h i c l e o r l i n e o f v e h i c l e s , i n c l u d i n g the 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r , t h a t was o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f my e m p l o y m e n t a t [ G M ] . "... N o n e o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n I r e c e i v e d a s a n e m p l o y e e o f [GM] was s p e c i f i c a l l y d e p e n d a n t on t h e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d , o r t h e amount o f goods s o l d b y [GM] i n A l a b a m a . "... I h a v e n e v e r p e r s o n a l l y d o n e o r s o l i c i t e d b u s i n e s s i n t h e S t a t e of Alabama i n c o n n e c t i o n with my e m p l o y m e n t a t [ G M ] . "... I have n e v e r done b u s i n e s s or s o l i c i t e d b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a on my own b e h a l f . I h a v e n e v e r personally incorporated or otherwise formed a business entity within Alabama or otherwise t r a n s a c t e d b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a on my own b e h a l f . 9 1091386 "... I have never maintained an o f f i c e or o t h e r w i s e w o r k e d i n A l a b a m a . I do n o t now h o l d , n o r have I ever held, any Alabama professional or recreational licenses. "... I do n o t now h a v e , n o r h a v e I e v e r h a d , a n y s u b s t a n t i a l t i e s t o A l a b a m a a n d I am n o t i n v o l v e d i n any a c t i v i t i e s i n t h a t s t a t e . "... I h a v e n e v e r s e r v e d on t h e b o a r d s o f a n y o t h e r companies o r c h a r i t i e s l o c a t e d i n Alabama and have n o t a t t e n d e d any m e e t i n g s i n t h a t s t a t e . "... I d i d n o t r e c e i v e a c o p y o f t h e Summons a n d C o m p l a i n t i n t h i s c a s e . P r i o r t o t h i s c a s e , t o my k n o w l e d g e , I h a v e n e v e r b e e n named a s a p a r t y t o litigation in the Alabama courts or in an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g . I have never a t t e m p t e d t o use t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o b r i n g an a c t i o n o r c l a i m a g a i n s t a n o t h e r p a r t y , nor have I ever v o l u n t a r i l y s u b m i t t e d m y s e l f t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Alabama courts." In Pearce's second affidavit, he stated the following facts: "I currently reside i n Michigan. I have never m a i n t a i n e d a r e s i d e n c e i n A l a b a m a . N o r have I owned, p o s s e s s e d , o r r e g u l a r l y used any r e a l o r p e r s o n a l property i n Alabama. I have never p a i d t a x e s i n A l a b a m a a n d am n o t r e g i s t e r e d t o v o t e i n A l a b a m a . I do n o t r e g u l a r l y t r a v e l t o A l a b a m a . "... I h a v e no r e c o l l e c t i o n o f e v e r b e i n g S t a t e o f A l a b a m a i n my l i f e . w i t h i n the "... I h a v e n e v e r h a d a n y d i r e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h any i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e S t a t e o f Alabama r e g a r d i n g t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t Blazer. 10 1091386 "... I was employed at [GM] f r o m 1 985 to 2001. D u r i n g the time p e r i o d t h a t I h e l d the p o s i t i o n s r e f e r e n c e d i n [ t h e ] P l a i n t i f f s ' Amended C o m p l a i n t , my t i t l e s a n d p o s i t i o n s w e r e as f o l l o w s . I was Vice Chairman of [GM] and a member o f the Board of D i r e c t o r s o f [GM] f r o m 1996 t o 2001. "... A t no t i m e d u r i n g my e m p l o y m e n t a t [GM] was I p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d as t h e R e l e a s e E n g i n e e r o r C h i e f E n g i n e e r charged w i t h r e l e a s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d e s i g n , d e v e l o p m e n t , m a n u f a c t u r e , o r t e s t i n g o f any [GM] c a r , t r u c k , or sport utility vehicle. I, l i k e w i s e , was n e v e r p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d as a R e l e a s e Engineer or an engineer otherwise charged with r e l e a s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d e s i g n , d e v e l o p m e n t , m a n u f a c t u r e , or t e s t i n g of the r o o f , s e a t , s e a t b e l t s y s t e m , o r h a n d l i n g and s t a b i l i t y s y s t e m s u s e d by [GM] i n any c a r , t r u c k , o r s p o r t u t i l i t y v e h i c l e . "... None o f t h e compensation I received as an e m p l o y e e o f [GM] was s p e c i f i c a l l y d e p e n d a n t on the l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d , or t h e amount o f goods s o l d b y [GM] i n Alabama. "... I have never p e r s o n a l l y done o r solicited b u s i n e s s i n the S t a t e of Alabama i n c o n n e c t i o n with my e m p l o y m e n t a t [GM]. "... I have never done business or solicited b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a on my own b e h a l f . I h a v e n e v e r personally incorporated or otherwise formed a business entity within Alabama or otherwise t r a n s a c t e d b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a on my own behalf. "... I have never m a i n t a i n e d an o f f i c e o r otherwise w o r k e d i n A l a b a m a . I do n o t now h o l d , nor have I e v e r h e l d , any A l a b a m a p r o f e s s i o n a l o r r e c r e a t i o n a l licenses. 11 1091386 "... I do n o t now h a v e , n o r h a v e I e v e r h a d , a n y s u b s t a n t i a l t i e s t o A l a b a m a a n d I am n o t i n v o l v e d i n any a c t i v i t i e s i n t h a t s t a t e . "... I h a v e n e v e r s e r v e d on t h e b o a r d s o f a n y o t h e r c o m p a n i e s or c h a r i t i e s l o c a t e d i n Alabama and have not a t t e n d e d any m e e t i n g s i n t h a t s t a t e , "... I d i d n o t r e c e i v e a c o p y o f t h e Summons a n d C o m p l a i n t i n t h i s c a s e . P r i o r t o t h i s c a s e , t o my k n o w l e d g e , I h a v e n e v e r b e e n named a s a p a r t y t o litigation in the Alabama courts or in an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g . I have n e v e r a t t e m p t e d t o u s e t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o b r i n g an a c t i o n o r c l a i m a g a i n s t a n o t h e r p a r t y , nor have I ever v o l u n t a r i l y s u b m i t t e d m y s e l f t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Alabama courts." A second individual In that affidavit by Losh d e f e n d a n t s ' December affidavit, Losh was submitted 18, 2010, m o t i o n t o with dismiss. stated: "I currently reside i n Michigan. I have never m a i n t a i n e d a r e s i d e n c e i n A l a b a m a . N o r have I owned, p o s s e s s e d , o r r e g u l a r l y u s e d any r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n Alabama. I have n e v e r p a i d t a x e s i n A l a b a m a a n d am n o t r e g i s t e r e d t o v o t e i n A l a b a m a . I do n o t r e g u l a r l y t r a v e l t o A l a b a m a . "... I c a n r e c a l l b e i n g i n A l a b a m a o n l y two t i m e s i n my l i f e . I n t h e 1 9 7 0 s , I p a s s e d t h r o u g h A l a b a m a a s I was d r i v i n g f r o m New O r l e a n s t o t h e M i d w e s t . I a l s o a t t e n d e d t h e NASCAR r a c e a t T a l l a d e g a some t i m e i n t h e 1 9 8 0 s . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s e two t r i p s h a d n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e d e s i g n , d e v e l o p m e n t , t e s t i n g , m a n u f a c t u r e , a d v e r t i s i n g , o r s a l e s o f 1998 C h e v r o l e t Blazers. 12 the 1091386 "... I h a v e n e v e r h a d a n y d i r e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h any i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a r e g a r d i n g t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r . "... I was employed at [GM] f r o m 1964 to 2000. During the time p e r i o d t h a t I h e l d the p o s i t i o n s r e f e r e n c e d i n [ t h e ] P l a i n t i f f s ' Amended Complaint, my t i t l e s and p o s i t i o n s w e r e as follows. I was E x e c u t i v e V i c e P r e s i d e n t and C h i e f F i n a n c i a l O f f i c e r o f [GM] f r o m 1994 t o 2 0 0 0 . " On March opposition relying to in 15, the part interrogatories. evidence copies interrogatories. 2010, the plaintiffs individual on the of the The defendants' individual However, filed the plaintiffs motion to defendants' dismiss, to submit as defendants' answers to did with did not submit their memorandum t h e a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' e x p e r t , S t e p h e n Syson. In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Syson stated: "My o p i n i o n s a r e b a s e d on my b a c k g r o u n d , experience and e x p e r t i s e i n t h e f i e l d o f a u t o m o t i v e d e s i g n and analysis engineering, and on the application of recognized laws of physics and principles of mechanical and automotive engineering to the s p e c i f i c i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e e v e n t s i n q u e s t i o n , as w e l l as my k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h automobile s a f e t y as k n o w n b y t h e a u t o m o t i v e c o m m u n i t y . "... My e x p e r t i s e i n c l u d e s t h e f i e l d o f a u t o m o t i v e design analysis engineering -the specialty of a n a l y z i n g t h e d e s i g n and p e r f o r m a n c e o f v e h i c l e s , i n c l u d i n g r e s t r a i n t s y s t e m s . W h i l e e m p l o y e d by [GM], I was assigned to the [GM] Safety Research and Development L a b o r a t o r y (SRDL) at the [GM] Proving 13 in answers plaintiffs individual a memorandum R. 1091386 G r o u n d s , f r o m S e p t e m b e r 1971 t h r o u g h A u g u s t 1 9 7 8 , as an engineer in the restraints, structures and a n a l y t i c a l g r o u p s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , I was responsible for analyzing crash tests, s l e d t e s t s and field p e r f o r m a n c e o f [GM] v e h i c l e s a n d r e s t r a i n t s y s t e m s . " Syson opined t h a t the the Blazer for prior years 1998 Chevrolet B l a z e r and models were "defective in their handing and stability c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s because they are top-heavy, w i t h a high center of gravity, and prone to driver responses (due to the poor h a n d l i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) t h a t l e a d even t r a i n e d t e s t d r i v e r s to l o s e c o n t r o l of these vehicles, making a rollover accident inevit[a]ble, as i t happened in this instant accident. fl "... At the time the 1998 model year Chevrolet B l a z e r was d i s t r i b u t e d , m a r k e t e d , s o l d a n d p l a c e d i n the stream of commerce, i t s prior model years predecessor, i n c l u d i n g t h e 1997 m o d e l y e a r v e h i c l e , a l l o f w h i c h u t i l i z e d t h e same d e f e c t i v e d e s i g n s had b e e n t h e s u b j e c t o f numerous l a w s u i t s , j u d g m e n t s and settlements because of said defective designs, p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s p r o p e n s i t y t o r o l l o v e r , and had been the subject of t e s t s , crash tests reports, s t u d i e s and c o m p l a i n t s a t t e s t i n g t o s a i d p r o p e n s i t y t o r o l l o v e r f o r many y e a r s b e f o r e i t was placed i n t o the s t r e a m of commerce. "... B a s e d on a l l o f t h e a b o v e , i n my o p i n i o n , the [ i n d i v i d u a l ] defendants i n t h i s case, Smith, Pearce a n d L o s h , k n e w a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e 1998 m o d e l y e a r C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r m o t o r v e h i c l e s , l i k e and i n c l u d i n g the one t h a t i s the subject of t h i s suit, were d i s t r i b u t e d , m a r k e t e d , s o l d and p l a c e d i n t h e s t r e a m o f commerce t h a t s a i d v e h i c l e s were d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y dangerous i n t h a t t h e y were i n h e r e n t l y 14 of 1091386 unstable due to the propensity to r o l l over in f o r e s e e a b l e a c c i d e n t s ; the v e r y t h i n g t h a t happened in this accident, causing a catastrophic injury i n one c h i l d a n d t h e d e a t h o f t h e o t h e r [sic]." On M a r c h 31, defendants' motion motion and May 6, dismiss, the the record on against 54(b), 2010, i t s March the of supplement On 31, Civ. P. appeal claims the Motion court against individual granted the the individual jurisdiction. appeal moved with for leave the to individual the May to 13, 2010, from the court as J u n e 24, the 2010, order defendants On against trial individual defendants' trial denied the Supplement the 15 the court's a basis to for trial court the claims to Rule plaintiffs filed order defendants. dismissing On July p l a i n t i f f s ' motion Review Record motion f i n a l pursuant record. of the dismissing 2010, individual Standard I. the argued, would have p r o v i d e d individual A l a . R. notice their which they jurisdiction. certified on a n s w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f s and personal trial plaintiffs r e l i e d i n response to the dismiss the claims personal 2010, the defendants' a to f o r l a c k of supplement had following a hearing dismissed defendants On 2010, 1, to 1091386 A trial court's decision on a motion to supplement a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d u n d e r R u l e 1 0 ( f ) , A l a . R. A p p . the if trial the court's trial court the motion. 546 ( A l a . 2008) supplement sound See has and w i l l Motion to Dismiss on a party's jurisdiction. f o r Lack court R u l e 1 0 ( f ) , A l a . R. 726, 729 2000)." Elliott de Jurisdiction novo a trial court's f o r l a c k of personal So. 2 d 3 4 6 , Co., v. Van 351-52 ( A l a . 781 Kleef, So. 2 d 830 241, So. ( A l a . 2002). " ' I n c o n s i d e r i n g a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r as t r u e the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint not c o n t r o v e r t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s , R o b i n s o n v . G i a r m a r c o & B i l l , P.C., 74 F . 3 d 253 (11th C i r . 19 9 6 ) , a n d C a b l e / H o m e C o m m u n i c a t i o n C o r p . v . N e t w o r k Productions, I n c . , 902 F . 2 d 829 (11th C i r . 1990), and "where the plaintiff's complaint and the d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s c o n f l i c t , t h e ... c o u r t m u s t construe a l l reasonable i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r of the 16 App. standard). to dismiss 628 10 on to of P e r s o n a l Greene v. C o n n e l l y , ( A l a . C i v . App. in ruling c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n whether considers motion only 3d 1993); W i l l i a m s v. S k y s i t e Communications 245 reversed to So. the e x c e s s - o f - d i s c r e t i o n appellate is left Mem'l C h a p e l v . P a r k e r , an a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d u n d e r II. be i t s discretion (reviewing a t r i a l under judgment exceeded Prattville P., "An discretion, P., the 2d 1091386 p l a i n t i f f . " R o b i n s o n , 74 F . 3 d a t 2 5 5 ( q u o t i n g M a d a r a v . H a l l , 916 F . 2 d 1 5 1 0 , 1 5 1 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . ' " Wenger Tree Serv. v. R o y a l 888, 894 ( A l a . 2002) 795, Truck & Equip., ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Inc., McInnis, 853 S o . 2 d 820 S o . 2 d 798 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . "However, i f the defendant makes a p r i m a facie e v i d e n t i a r y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s no p e r s o n a l jurisdiction, 'the p l a i n t i f f i s then r e q u i r e d t o substantiate the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l allegations i n the c o m p l a i n t by a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r competent p r o o f , and h e may not merely reiterate the factual allegations i n the complaint.' Mercantile Capital, LP v . F e d e r a l T r a n s t e l , I n c . , 193 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1247 (N.D. A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g F u t u r e T e c h . Today, I n c . v . OSF H e a l t h c a r e S y s . , 218 F . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 124 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2000 ) ) . See a l s o H a n s e n v . N e u m u e l l e r GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 4 7 1 , 4 7 4 - 7 5 (D. D e l . 1 9 9 5 ) ('When a defendant f i l e s a motion t o dismiss pursuant t o F e d . R. C i v . P. 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , a n d s u p p o r t s t h a t m o t i o n with a f f i d a v i t s , p l a i n t i f f i srequired tocontrovert t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s w i t h h i s own a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r competent evidence i n order t o s u r v i v e t h e motion.') (citing Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic R e s o r t s , L t d . , 7 3 5 F . 2 d 6 1 , 63 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . " Ex parte (Ala. Covington P i k e Dodge, Inc. 904 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 - 3 0 2004). Analysis I. Motion In t o Supplement opposition dismiss, the p l a i n t i f f s defendants' plaintiffs to the individual answers to d i d not submit relied defendants' i n part interrogatories. on the motion individual However, as e v i d e n c e c o p i e s o f t h o s e 17 to the answers. 1091386 After the trial court motion to dismiss, ruling on 54(b), It to permit i s clear entered from that, to dismiss as We 1 defendants' although supplement ruling, review pursuant the p l a i n t i f f s answers a final the t r i a l court Mem'l C h a p e l v . P a r k e r , to filed Rule their judgment the record court's record exceeded appeal motion to had not y e t been the only purpose of f o r purposes ruling to determine of t h i s on a m o t i o n t o another, i t s discretion. 10 S o . 3 d 546 on to i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . of the p l a i n t i f f s ' t h e m o t i o n was f i l e d , the appellate the t r i a l final certified i t s them t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d m o t i o n was t o s u p p l e m e n t appeal. court defendants' f i l e d a motion requesting the the substance at the time individual the t r i a l the p l a i n t i f f s the i n d i v i d u a l supplement the the A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d b e f o r e court with but before the motion notice of appeal, trial granted ( A l a . 2008) i n so Prattville (reviewing The plaintiffs d i d n o t r a i s e a n y new a r g u m e n t s i n t h e motion t o supplement, and they d i d n o t r e q u e s t t h a t t h e t r i a l court reconsider i t s ruling i n light of the i n d i v i d u a l defendants' a n s w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . On t h e same d a y t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r motion t o supplement, they a l s o f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t "amend o r c o r r e c t " the order g r a n t i n g t h e motion t o d i s m i s s . The plaintiffs requested no o t h e r amendment o r c o r r e c t i o n t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s e x c e p t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x p r e s s l y make t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s t o c e r t i f y t h e o r d e r a s f i n a l u n d e r R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 18 1091386 a trial court's decision whether s u p p l e m e n t an appellate P., excess-of-discretion under the According to the record to grant under Rule a personally model year receiving vehicle Blazer any was GM the design that "'do not the testimony individual or defect recall' in their we any negates the Plaintiffs' The against jurisdiction, the this the trial 19 GM argue contradicts affidavits. do not s t a t e d by court's i s l i m i t e d to the Such affidavit pleadings 27. i n d i v i d u a l defendants Court plaintiffs i n d i v i d u a l defendants' i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s as 1998 within defendants' at the that [p]laintiffs' brief, recall" defective, directly conclude that those a f f i d a v i t s answers to was conversation sworn that not indicating vehicle. defendants' leaves Moreover, i n reviewing claims vehicle i s a n o n a n s w e r , and Having reviewed the detail, having defendants a l l e g i n g that documents i n the the and unchallenged." lawsuit internal effectively testimony any sport-utility defective, a b o u t any evidence of App. standard). plaintiffs, aware to 1 0 ( f ) , A l a . R. s t a t e d i n a n s w e r s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h a t t h e y "do being motion affidavits conflict the f o r l a c k of record with plaintiffs. ruling dismissing the in the personal before the 1091386 trial c o u r t a t the time M.S. Enters., initially I n c . , 642 note record alone, was before these i t r u l e d on t h a t m o t i o n . that this the t r i a l Court court even plaintiffs' defendants' answers the record, they of the issue to that i t sr u l i n g . " ) . court had the included i n would have been and granted For t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s had been superfluous jurisdiction. i n denying to our a n a l y s i s The t r i a l court d i d the p l a i n t i f f s ' motion to Jurisdiction jurisdiction o f due p r o c e s s Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . 2009). sufficient only the evidence i t made trial of the Jurisdiction the l i m i t defendant to a review ("We the record. personal Amendment i s limited supplement of personal Personal (Ala. ( A l a . 1 994) individual A. L i m i t s o f P e r s o n a l to 454 the not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n The 453, when i f the motion II. 2d that i s , i tcan consider reasons, supplement So. C f . Cowen v . "'The permits to a under the United courts extends States and t h e E x p a r t e D B I , I n c . , 23 S o . 3 d 6 3 5 , 643 Due forum Process state Clause of to subject only when that contacts" with i t s courts "minimum of t h e Alabama 20 the the a Fourteenth nonresident defendant forum has state. 1091386 International Ct. 154, L.Ed. 95 (quoting E l l i o t t v. A 90 S h o e Co. court may (1945).'" Van contacts give to jurisdiction. v. Hall, 466 U.S. jurisdiction of' In with jurisdiction jurisdiction forum event, are arising haled into out forum, 2d when t h e at state critical and 3d a t de where sufficient or the 466 with 466 at personam defendant to 414. general in at the regard "'should i n the reasonably forum state. and 414. the In any nonresident 486 (1985) Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 21 U.S. anticipate Burger King (quoting 286, 295 out defendant's to U.S. S.A. 'arises exercise the to specific U.S. to the defendant between 644 general Colombia, to or may S. the i s whether the c o n t a c t s are such t h a t defendant court'" court 66 730). forum." systematic. question So. are is related of or r e l a t e d contacts 23 316, A court exercises the a subjecting defendant's contacts nonresident DBI, jurisdiction (1984). with 310, jurisdiction forum specific 414 continuous the the contacts the by So. personal "when a c o n t r o v e r s y a c t i o n not contacts 830 U.S. Helicopteros Nacionales 408, a defendant's an with either See Ex p a r t e Kleef, exercise defendant's rise v . W a s h i n g t o n , 326 the being Corp. v. World-Wide (1980)). 1091386 Finally, "'[o]nce i t has been purposefully established State, these contacts to determine factors jurisdiction justice."'" King, B. would Personal the is v. in light of other of and a t 644 personal substantial (quoting Burger directed a product (quoting Court of that t h e Due P r o c e s s requires that i n the stream Ex p a r t e McInnis, i n turn Asahi California, specific Metal 4 80 U.S. Further, State t h e mere a c t o f p l a c i n g that than the o f commerce."'" 820 S o . 2 d 7 9 5 , I n d u s . Co., L t d . 102, 110 (1987 ) i n A l l o y Wheels, the stream sweep t h e p r o d u c t i n t o t h e f o r u m 22 Clause of the defendant "a d e f e n d a n t ' s a w a r e n e s s t h a t o f c o m m e r c e may o r w i l l does n o t c o n v e r t that at the forum (O'Connor, J . , p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ) . Court held Defendants I n t e r n a t i o n a l , L t d . , 882 S o . 2 d Constitution (Ala. 2001), quoting this forum play m u s t b e b a s e d on a n a c t i o n a c t of p l a c i n g Superior defendant the the I n d i v i d u a l Court held States 882 S o . 2 d a t 824 803 3d a within assertion "fair So. Over A l l o y Wheels "'"more p u r p o s e f u l l y mere the with D B I , 23 Jurisdiction United jurisdiction contacts considered whether (Ala. 2003), t h i s of be that at 476). I n Ex p a r t e 819, may comport Ex p a r t e 471 U.S. minimum decided the product State into the 1091386 stream into State." 2d at J., an So. 882 804, act purposefully 2d at in quoting plurality 824 turn parte DBI, W h e e l s and held that under the will be products 655 Inc., Due over a stream Burger World-Wide Volkswagen However, i n Ex fundamental that there be some avails [him]self within the protections (quoting v. of forum of act the i t s laws."'" 357 U.S. 471 235, 112 Court So. (O'Connor, overruled does not delivers the exceed i t s personal its products that they forum and those So. 3d State" consumers.'" U.S. Alloy expectation i n the from " ' " i t is essential i n each case this Court which thus Ex U.S. the 23 297-98). defendant purposefully of conducting invoking the parte a t 475, 253 at quoting at retreat U.S. 473, 23 d i d not 444 at privilege State, Burger King, Denckla, by at 820 turn DBI that McInnis, forum in Corp., notion the i f i t asserts that forum 471 parte this with injure King, U.S. Clause consumers subsequently parte forum State commerce toward omitted)). corporation of Ex 480 supra, Process p u r c h a s e d by (quoting the Asahi "'"[t]he the jurisdiction into (quoting opinion)(emphasis I n Ex powers directed DBI, 23 (1958)). benefits So. quoting This activities 3d and at 652-53 in turn Hanson "'purposeful 1091386 availment' not requirement," abandoned refined i n that In a following parte 2 exists alleged each of the Chevrolet Blazer the individual 1998 Chevrolet (2) 3 The DBI, 653, was i t was reaffirmed and argue rather, 23 that plaintiffs this (1) of case that, at Blazer as the sport-utility that on So. 3d time vehicle (according knew o r to the at the should placed plaintiffs of GM for placed the the stream in plaintiffs) have was of the 1998 each known t h a t of of the unreasonably the v e h i c l e i n t o the a r g u e t h a t u n d e r Ex the officers responsible sport-utility vehicle t i m e GM specific basis corporate d e f e n d a n t s was GM defendants dangerous at the commerce. in individual operations and DBI; the facts: day-to-day commerce, parte opinion. nutshell, jurisdiction GM, i n Ex Ex parte stream DBI of these T h e p l a i n t i f f s c o n c e d e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s do not have " c o n t i n u o u s and systematic" contact with Alabama s u f f i c i e n t to give r i s e to general j u r i s d i c t i o n . H e l i c o p t e r o s N a c i o n a l e s de C o l o m b i a , 466 U.S. a t 414 n.9. 2 The plaintiffs submit evidence in the form of an a f f i d a v i t o f S t e p h e n R. S y s o n , an e n g i n e e r , s t a t i n g t h a t the design of the 1998 Chevrolet Blazer was similar to the p r e v i o u s models of the C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n lawsuits alleging design defects. According to Syson, the individual defendants should have known that the 1998 C h e v r o l e t B l a z e r was d a n g e r o u s b e c a u s e t h e y s h o u l d h a v e known about the past lawsuits regarding previous models of the Blazer. We note that Syson's testimony i s b a s e d on his 3 24 1091386 facts over are sufficient the i n d i v i d u a l The to give defendants. plaintiffs individual rise point defendants to We t o no specific jurisdiction disagree. action indicating on the part that the individual defendants themselves p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the design, testing, marketing, involving that t h e 1998 C h e v r o l e t they Chevrolet were Blazer affidavits taking of part design, regarding safety, or r e c a l l personally into the Blazer individual the marketing, 1998 Chevrolet in or placing o f commerce. defendants i n , o r any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y testing, engineering, activities s p o r t - u t i l i t y v e h i c l e , or involved the stream decisions of the safety, Blazer 1998 Further, expressly f o r , GM's or the the disclaim engineering, recall sport-utility decisions vehicle. The i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a l s o d i s c l a i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r , o r personal participation i n ,placing i n t o t h e s t r e a m o f commerce. evidence to rebut t h e 1998 The p l a i n t i f f s the i n d i v i d u a l Chevrolet Blazer have p r e s e n t e d defendants' no affidavits. e x p e r i e n c e and t r a i n i n g i n t h e f i e l d o f a u t o m o t i v e d e s i g n and analysis engineering. The record contains no evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the i n d i v i d u a l defendants are experts i n the f i e l d o f a u t o m o t i v e d e s i g n and a n a l y s i s e n g i n e e r i n g . However, t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s do n o t o b j e c t t o S y s o n ' s a f f i d a v i t on t h i s b a s i s . 25 1091386 "[I]t or is clear employees upon of a corporation jurisdiction established officers that engaged the state's can attach." 641-42 State. this can The be only activities the part conducting Chevrolet not be statute before v. this record, are subjected evidence would not the that would Inc. the not such this personal engage i n any f r o m GM's this 373 So. 2d the i n Ex establishes of availment on the privilege of to the Neither did employment DBI: "'[T]he c o n s t i t u t i o n a l touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established "minimum c o n t a c t s " i n the f o r u m S t a t e . A l t h o u g h i t has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in 26 that respect of in this any from t h e i r parte 640 , individual activities. observed to defendants' participation s p o r t - u t i l i t y vehicle. Court is them jurisdiction in Court defendant such a c t i v i t i e s apart It individual subject that a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n Alabama w i t h Blazer the amount t o a p u r p o s e f u l individual ... individual to personal before merely i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n Gunter-Dunn, State itself. a showing officers predicated corporation m u s t be defendants' GM's of the may i n some a c t i v i t y t h a t Thames individual As there long-arm with defendants apart over ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . On contacts the that j u r i s d i c t i o n over i n d i v i d u a l 1998 they and 1091386 a n o t h e r S t a t e s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h s u c h contacts there when policy considerations so require, the [United States Supreme] Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y held that t h i s kind of f o r e s e e a b i l i t y is not a " s u f f i c i e n t benchmark" for exercising personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . Instead, "the f o r e s e e a b i l i t y t h a t i s c r i t i c a l t o d u e p r o c e s s a n a l y s i s ... i s t h a t the defendant's conduct and c o n n e c t i o n with the forum State are such that he s h o u l d reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." In defining when i t i s t h a t a p o t e n t i a l defendant should "reasonably anticipate" out-of-state litigation, the [United States Supreme] Court f r e q u e n t l y has drawn from t h e r e a s o n i n g o f Hanson v. D e n c k l a , 357 U.S. 2 3 5 , 2 5 3 ( 1 9 5 8 ) : "'"The u n i l a t e r a l activity of those who c l a i m some r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a n o n r e s i d e n t defendant cannot s a t i s f y the requirement of contact with the forum State. The a p p l i c a t i o n of that rule w i l l vary with the quality and n a t u r e of the defendant's a c t i v i t y , but i t i s e s s e n t i a l i n each case that there be some a c t by which t h e defendant p u r p o s e f u l l y a v a i l s i t s e l f of the p r i v i l e g e of conducting a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the forum S t a t e , thus i n v o k i n g t h e b e n e f i t s and p r o t e c t i o n s o f i t s l a w s . " "'This "purposeful availment" requirement e n s u r e s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t w i l l n o t be h a l e d i n t o a jurisdiction solely as a result of "random," " f o r t u i t o u s , " or "attenuated" contacts, or of the " u n i l a t e r a l a c t i v i t y of another party or a t h i r d p e r s o n . " J u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r , however, where t h e contacts proximately result from a c t i o n s by t h e defendant himself that create a "substantial connection" w i t h the forum S t a t e . ' " Ex p a r t e U.S. D B I , 23 S o . 3 d a t 6 5 2 - 5 3 a t 473-76) (emphasis omitted; 27 (quoting emphasis Burger King, added). 471 1091386 On t h i s the record, the evidence exercise defendants. of personal i s not s u f f i c i e n t jurisdiction T h e r e f o r e , the judgment over to support the of the c i r c u i t affirmed. AFFIRMED. Woodall, Smith, P a r k e r , a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 28 individual court i s

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.