Cornelison v. Chaney

• Decision Date: 10 February 1976
• Citation: 16 Cal.3d 143,127 Cal.Rptr. 352,545 P.2d 264
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 545 P.2d 264 Odessa CORNELISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Roy Douglas CHANEY, Defendant and Respondent. L.A. 30416.

Page 352

127 Cal.Rptr. 352

16 Cal.3d 143, 545 P.2d 264

Odessa CORNELISON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Roy Douglas CHANEY, Defendant and Respondent.

L.A. 30416.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Feb. 10, 1976.

Olney, Levy, Kaplan & Tenner and Jack Tenner, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Williams & Black and Donald B. Black, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.

MOSK, Justice.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether California, consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution, may assert jurisdiction over a nonresident individual whose essentially interstate business has a relationship to this state, but whose allegedly tortious acts occurred outside the state.

Plaintiff is a California resident whose husband was killed in a highway collision with defendant's truck in Nevada, 27 miles south of Las Vegas, not far from the California border. Plaintiff was a witness to the accident. She filed a complaint in California alleging that his death was caused by defendant's negligence. Defendant is a resident and domiciliary of Nebraska and process was served upon him by mailing copies of the original summons and complaint to his residence in Nebraska. (Code Civ.Proc., § 415.30.) ¹ Appearing specially and without submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court, defendant moved that the issuance of the summons and the service be quashed because the court lacked jurisdiction over his person. (Code Civ.Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) ² The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over defendant because 'the quality, extent and nature of the contacts of defendant . . . with the State of California, as it applies to the transaction giving rise to this cause of action, are not sufficient for jurisdiction of this Court to attach herein.'

Plaintiff appeals, contending that the activities of defendant furnish sufficient basis for jurisdiction to attach in California and that the trial court erred in dismissing the action. We agree.

For seven years preceding the accident defendant was engaged in the business of hauling goods by truck in interstate commerce. He made approximately 20 trips a year to this state in the operation of this business. The accident occurred while defendant was en route to California. He was hauling dry milk to the Star Kist Tuna Company in Long Beach, California, and intended to obtain cargo in California for a return shipment to an undesignated destination.

Defendant was licensed to haul freight by the Public Utilities Commission of California, and had similar licenses issued by the regulatory agencies of several other states. His average cargo in any single trip to California had a value of approximately $20,000. He acted as an independent contractor for several brokerage companies engaged in shipping, one of which was in California.

A California court may exercise judicial jurisdiction over nonresidents on any basis not inconsistent with the United States Constitution or the California Constitution. (Code Civ.Proc., § 410.10.) ³ In a significant line of cases beginning with International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, the United States Supreme Court has defined the parameters of the power of the states to compel nonresidents to defend suits brought against them in the state's courts. (Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485; Traveler's Health Assn. v. Virginia (1950) 339 U.S. 643, 70 S.Ct. 927, 94 L.Ed. 1154.) The general rule is that the forum state may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident unless his relationship to the state is such as to make the exercise of such jurisdiction reasonable. (International Shoe, 326 U.S. at p. 320, 66 S.Ct. 154; see Rest.2d Conflicts, § 24.)

If a nonresident defendant's activities may be described as 'extensive or wide-ranging' (Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898--899, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57) or 'substantial . . . continuous and systematic' (Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., supra, 342 U.S. 437, 447--448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485), there is a constitutionally sufficient relationship to warrant jurisdiction for all causes of action asserted against him. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged by connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum.

If, however, the defendant's activities in the forum are not so pervasive as to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over him, then jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of his activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of action. In such a situation, the cause of action must arise out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum, or defendant must perform some other act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Thus, as the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. ⁴ The Crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant's activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction. (Hanson v. Denckla, supra, 357 U.S. 235, 250--253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., supra, 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223; Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal.2d 893, 898--899, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57; see 14 West's Annot. Code Civ.Proc. (1973 ed.) § 410.10, p. 459, for the Judicial Council's extensive comment on the bases of jurisdiction.)

Applying these rules to the instant case, we conclude that defendant's activities in California are not so substantial or wide-ranging as to jusify general jurisdiction over him to adjudicate all matters regardless of their relevance to the cause of action alleged by plaintiff.

Perkins and Koninklijke L.M. v. Superior Court (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 495, 237 P.2d 297, illustrate the type of activity which has been held sufficient for the exercise of general jurisdiction. In Perkins the exercise of jurisdiction was premised on the fact that the defendant corporation had temporarily established virtually all of its administrative functions within the forum state while its overseas base of operations was controlled by a foreign power. In that circumstance the forum state could adjudicate a cause of action which was 'entirely distinct from (those administrative) activities' within the state. Koninklijke involved a Dutch airline which was compelled to defend a suit arising from an airplane accident in England. The defendant's substantial purchases of airplanes in California, some 30 local employees, and other local business operations were sufficient to warrant jurisdiction even though the subject matter of the action was wholly unrelated to the business conducted by the corporation in California. ⁵

In the present case, by contrast, defendant's activity in California donsisted of some 20 trips a year into the state over the past 7 years to deliver and obtain goods, an independent contractor relationship with a local broker, and a Public Utilities Commission license. In our view, these contacts are not sufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant without regard to whether plaintiffs cause of action is relevant to California activity. ⁶

We come, then, to an assessment of the relation between defendant's activities in California and the cause of action alleged by plaintiff. Our inquiry is directed to whether plaintiff's cause of action, based on an accident which resulted from defendant's allegedly tortious act in Nevada, arises out of or has a substantial connection with a business relationship defendant has purposefully established with California.

As we have seen, defendant has been engaged in a continuous course of conduct that has brought him into the state almost twice a month for seven years as a trucker under a California license. The accident occurred not far from the California border, while defendant was bound for this state. He was not only bringing goods into California for a local manufacturer, but he intended to receive merchandise here for delivery elsewhere. The accident arose out of the driving of the truck, the very activity which was the essential basis of defendant's contacts with this state. These factors demonstrate, in our view, a substantial nexus between plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's activities in California.

It is true that, because the accident occurred across the state line in Nevada, the connection is not as direct as in cases such as McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223. However, we cannot overlook the fact that defendant's contacts with California, although insufficient to justify general jurisdiction over him, are far more extensive than those of the defendant in McGee. ⁷ The question of jurisdiction cannot be decided by the application of some precise formula. The seminal case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 159, 90 L.Ed. 95, pointed out that it is not a question whether the defendant's activity within the state 'is a little more or a little less.' The Court there rejected a rigid test in favor of a flexible approach grounded in the quality and nature of the activity...