This case is the third of three long-arm jurisdiction cases that we decide today.
Accepting as true, for the purposes of this inquiry, all well-pleaded facts, Frisch v. Alexson Equip. Corp., 423 Pa. 247,
Appellee's answers to appellant's interrogatories revealed that appellee had the following contacts in Pennsylvania. For 36 years appellee has been listed in the Driver's Directory of GMC Truck Dealers, which is distributed in this state; it advertises occasionally in one Youngstown newspaper, which may have Pennsylvania readers, and two Youngstown radio stations, which may have Pennsylvania listeners;
Second, if this test is not satisfied, we determine whether the non-resident defendant's activities in Pennsylvania were "continuous and substantial." Bork v. Mills, 458 Pa. 228, 329 A.2d 247 (1974).
As just noted, the first part of the Proctor test is that it must appear that the defendant has "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within [Pennsylvania]." In deciding whether the record here shows that appellee so
Appellant particularly urges that in selling him a Jeep, appellee availed itself of the privilege of acting within Pennsylvania, for appellee could reasonably foresee that appellant might drive the Jeep from Ohio into Pennsylvania.
In World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation et al., v. Charles S. Woodson, District Judge of Creek County, Oklahoma, et al., 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the United States Supreme Court was faced with essentially the same argument.
The Court rejected this claim because neither the distributor nor dealer had any "contacts, ties, or relations" with Oklahoma. The Court could not find that any of defendants' activities, which were confined to the New York area, reflected a purposeful availment of the privilege of acting within Oklahoma, nor did it believe that the New York
Thus, the key inquiry is not whether there is a "likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state," but rather whether "defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See Kulko v. Superior Court, supra, 436 U.S. 84 at 97-98, 98 S.Ct. 1690, at 1699-70, 56 L.Ed.2d 132; Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. 186 at 216, 97 S.Ct. 2569 at 2586, 53 L.Ed.2d 683; and see id., at 217-219, 97 S.Ct. at 2586-2587 (STEVENS, J., concurring in the judgment)."
In light of World-Wide Volkswagen, we cannot agree with appellant that by selling him a Jeep in Ohio, which later was involved in an accident in Pennsylvania, appellee "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting with [Pennsylvania]."
Moreover, we are not persuaded by appellant's citation of several cases upholding jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers that had shipped goods into a state, sometimes in a highly indirect manner. See e.g., Coulter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 426 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1970); Eyerly Aircraft Co. v. Killian, 414 F.2d 591 (5th Cir. 1969); Hicks v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, 452 F.Supp. 130 (M.D. Pa. 1978); Keene v. Multicore Soldiers Ltd., 379 F.Supp. 1279 (E.D. Pa. 1974); Benn v. Linden Crane Co., 326 F.Supp. 995 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Buckeye Boiler v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 71 Cal.2d 893, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57 (1969); Duignan v. A.H. Robins Co., 98 Idaho 134, 559 P.2d 750 (1977); Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961); Andersen v. National Presto Industries, Inc., 257 Iowa 911, 135 N.W.2d 639 (1965); Ehlers v. U.S. Heating and Cooling Mfg. Corp., 267 Minn. 56, 124 N.W.2d 824 (1963); Metal-Matic, Inc., v. The Eighth Judicial District Court, 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617 (1966); Washington v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 257 Pa.Super. 482, 390 A.2d 1339 (1978); Kitzinger v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 240 Pa.Super. 345, 368 A.2d 333 (1976); Deere v. Zilber, 234 Pa.Super. 273, 338 A.2d 615 (1975); McCrory Corp. v. Girard Rubber Corp., 225 Pa.Super. 45, 307 A.2d 435 (1973), aff'd, 459 Pa. 57, 327 A.2d 8 (1974).
The seminal case among these is Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., supra. There, a foreign manufacturer of valves had installed a valve in a water heater, which was then shipped into Illinois, where it exploded and caused injury. The Illinois court upheld its jurisdiction over the manufacturer, stating:
In World-Wide Volkswagen, the Court suggested in dictum that Gray was distinguishable from the case before it:
444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. at 566.
Since in Gray it was not only "foreseeable" but the manufacturer's "expectation" that its valve would end up in Illinois, it was "reasonable" that the manufacturer should be "haled into court there."
This distinction between a dealer or distributor seeking to serve a limited market, like the New York distributor and dealer in World-Wide Volkswagen, and a manufacturer seeking to serve a larger market, like the manufacturer in Gray, has been endorsed elsewhere. In Developments-Jurisdiction, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 909, 929, (1960), the writer commented:
Here, appellee did not sell the Jeep to appellant as part of any effort to serve the Pennsylvania market or any consumers here.
Our conclusion that appellee's sale of the Jeep cannot by itself support a finding that appellee "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within [Pennsylvania]" does not end our inquiry, for we must still determine whether appellee in other ways availed itself of the privilege.
Unlike the automobile distributor and dealer in World-Wide Volkswagen, appellee had a variety of contacts with Pennsylvania. We have identified these above, when we summarized appellee's answers to appellant's interrogatories; it is therefore enough to refer to them at this point only generally. Of appellee's contacts with Pennsylvania, the most are that appellee advertised in media-one Youngstown newspaper and two Youngstown radio stations-likely to reach a Pennsylvania audience; that it sold vehicles to Pennsylvania residents; that it has performed various services in Pennsylvania pursuant to those sales; and that it is dependent on Pennsylvania suppliers for various vehicle products, parts, and accessories.
On the basis of this evidence, we think it reasonable to say that appellee has "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within [Pennsylvania]." Its various contacts with Pennsylvania represent the sort of "affiliating" circumstances necessary for state court jurisdiction, to which the Court alluded in World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. at 566, but which were not present in that case.
The second part of the Proctor test, it will be recalled, is that it must appear that "the cause of action [arose] from defendant's activities within the forum state." 228 Pa.Super. at 19, 323 A.2d at 15. On the basis of the present record, we cannot conclude that this requirement has been satisfied. To be sure, the accident on Interstate Route 80 in Pennsylvania, in which appellant was injured, might conceivably have been related to one of appellee's contacts with Pennsylvania; but nothing in the record suggests that it was. Appellee's sale of the Jeep to appellant, an Ohio resident, was not the product of any solicitation in Pennsylvania; appellee performed no services in Pennsylvania for appellant pursuant to the sale; and there is no evidence that the accident was caused by any part purchased by appellee from a Pennsylvania supplier.
Having concluded that the Proctor test of jurisdiction over appellant as a foreign defendant has not been satisfied in all of its parts, we must determine whether appellant's activities in Pennsylvania have been "continuous and substantial." Bork v. Mills, supra; Kingsley and Keith (Canada) Limited et al., v. Mercer International Corp., et al., supra; The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Exec'r., v. L.D. Pankey Institute et al., supra; Whalen and Whalen v. Walt Disney World Company Insurance Company of North America, 274 Pa.Super. 246, 418 A.2d 389 (1980); Lebkuecher v. Loquasto, 255 Pa.Super. 608, 389 A.2d 143 (1978); Garfield v. Homowack Lodge, Inc., 249 Pa.Super. 392, 378 A.2d 351 (1977).
Since we have stated these cases in Kingsley and Keith (Canada) Limited, et al., v. Mercer International Corp., et al., supra, we need not discuss them here. It is enough to say that on the basis of the present record, we are unable to determine whether appellee engaged in "continuous and substantial activities" within this state. On the one hand, appellee's activities in this state appear to have been "continuous",
The order of the lower court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Either party may take a new appeal from such proceedings.
HOFFMAN, J., concurs in the result.
VAN der VOORT, J., files a dissenting opinion.
VAN der VOORT, Judge, dissenting:
I concur with the majority in that part of the opinion which deals with the Proctor test for determining jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
I respectfully dissent, however, from that part of the decision of the majority which remands the case to determine whether appellee has conducted continuous and substantial activities within this state so as to make it reasonable for us to exercise jurisdiction.
In my judgment, not only did the pleadings fail to allege sufficient facts to warrant our exercise of jurisdiction, but the record below already contains enough evidence for a determination that appellee has not conducted the "substantial"
Therefore I would affirm the order of the Court below which sustains appellee's preliminary objections.