The SCOTUS decision in
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth
Judicial District Court
1 is a decision that we believe will
alter the legal landscape in the defense of product liability
matters with respect to the personal jurisdiction defense. We have
reported on this case in prior posts (
seeThe Law of Personal Jurisdiction Is About to Be
Changed Again - What Life Science Companies Should Expect), and
now that a decision has been handed down by the SCOTUS, we would
like to share some of our thoughts on how we believe the decision
will impact the defense of life science companies in product
[9]
Turning back to the case at hand, how did Ford’s general activities in the forum states sufficiently “relate to” the plaintiffs’ claims at issue? In the majority’s view, the answer was quite simple: “Ford had systematically served a market in Montana and Minnesota for the very vehicles that the plaintiffs alleged malfunctioned and injured them in those states.”
[10] Thus, just like Volkswagen and Daimler in past landmark cases, Ford was subject to personal jurisdiction for claims brought against them by forum residents based on accidents occurring within the forum.
Fairness and “Reciprocal Obligations”
Throughout the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Kagan directly and indirectly highlighted the extent of Ford’s activities in the forum states to demonstrate that permitting jurisdiction “treats Ford fairly.”
The Supreme Court’s latest foray into personal jurisdiction –
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court – seems to raise more questions than answers regarding the contours of specific jurisdiction. A curious result, given the eight-member panel
1 unanimously agreed that Ford
was subject to specific jurisdiction in the forums – Montana and Minnesota – where the underlying suits were filed.
Writing for the five-member majority, Justice Kagan reached this conclusion by recognizing that specific jurisdiction may exist where a defendant’s extensive activity is “related to” the plaintiff’s claims, even if not the but-for cause. The concurring opinions heavily criticized the majority’s “new test,” lamenting that the majority offered lower courts and litigants little guidance for discerning the limits of “related to” specific jurisdiction.
Ron Grossman
Chicago Tribune
Even though an elevator was right outside the chamber serving as a courtroom, âpolice must plow a path through the crowd even that distance to let Robert stoop through the doors and into his ârideâ downstairs after each session of the trial,â the Alton (Illinois) Evening Telegraph reported on March 9, 1939.
Every step of the way, the press trailed the 21-year-old. The hubbub was nothing new for Wadlow. It was his celebrity that brought him and Humberd together in federal court.
By the time of his premature death in 1940, Wadlow had gown to 8 feet, 11.1 inches. He still holds the Guinness World Records title as the tallest human being who ever lived â for whom there is credible evidence.
Flashback: Alton Giant Robert Wadlow fought for his dignity chicagotribune.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from chicagotribune.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.