Hapner v. Rolf Brauchli, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 September 1976
• Docket Number: Docket No. 26321
• Parties: DeAnn HAPNER and Benjamin Hapner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROLF BRAUCHLI, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, and Solis Apparatus Manufactories, Ltd., an Alien Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 375

247 N.W.2d 375

71 Mich.App. 263

DeAnn HAPNER and Benjamin Hapner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROLF BRAUCHLI, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant and Solis Apparatus Manufactories, Ltd., an Alien Corporation Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 26321.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Sept. 8, 1976.

Released for Publication Dec. 14, 1976.

Goodman, Eden, Millender, Goodman & Bedrosian by Robert A. Koory, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Charles R. Taylor, Detroit, for Brauchli.

John C. Lapinski, Detroit, for Solis.

Before MAHER, P.J., and RILEY and RYAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant Solis Apparatus Manufactories, Ltd., accelerated judgment under GCR 1963, 116.1(1), for lack of jurisdiction over the person.

Plaintiff DeAnn Hapner was injured in January, 1972, while using a hairdryer manufactured by defendant Solis. At that time she was a student at the University of Michigan. Her father, plaintiff Benjamin Hapner, had earlier purchased the hairdryer from his longtime barber in Chicago as a gift for his daughter, DeAnn. When she received the hairdryer, DeAnn was still in high school and living with her parents in Chicago.

In February, 1973, plaintiffs brought suit against the Illinois importer and wholesaler of the hairdryer and the Chicago distributor from whom the barber obtained the hairdryer. The barber was not joined as defendant. In February, 1974, the trial court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the distributor. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Solis as a defendant on October 11, 1974. Solis is a Swiss corporation with its principal place of business in Glattbrugg, Switzerland. Solis sends its products, electrical appliances, barber and beautician supplies, to three independent importers in the United States. One importer is located in New York, one in Los Angeles, and one, defendant Rolf Brauchli, Inc., in Chicago. Solis claims to have neither an interest in nor any control over any of the importers of its products. Solis itself transacts no business in Michigan. While it does not solicit orders for its products in this state, its Los Angeles importer has nationally advertised Solis products in professional publications.

M.C.L.A. § 600.715; M.S.A. § 27A.715 provides statutory authority for the exercise of jurisdiction here. The statute grants limited personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of, among other things, 'the doing or causing any act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort'. The broad language of the statute, particularly the part quoted, indicates the Legislature's desire to expand limited personal jurisdiction to its full potential. Sifers v. Horen, 385 Mich. 195, 188 N.W.2d 623 (1971).

Despite the statute's coverage here, defendant argues that due process considerations prevent its application. Due process requires 'sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice to permit the state to enforce the obligations which * * * (defendant) has incurred there'. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 66 S.Ct. 154, 160, 90 L.Ed. 95, 104 (1945).

Defendant emphasizes the formulation of the due process requirement found in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 (1958):

'(I)t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'

The meaning of this standard, when removed from the context in which it was pronounced, is not certain. In fact, it may have no meaning in the present case.

'That case (Hanson v. Denckla) was an unusual situation in which the court achieved substantial justice, but it is of questionable value as precedent regarding the problem of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. * * * A rule limiting jurisdiction to defendants who 'purposefully' conduct activities within the state cannot properly be applied in product liability cases in view of the fortuitous route by which products enter any particular state.' Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 100 Ariz. 251, 256, 413 P.2d 732, 735 (1966).

In Woods v. Edgewater Amusement Park, 381 Mich. 559, 165 N.W.2d 12 (1969), the Supreme Court relied heavily upon Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), in deciding that there was jurisdiction over the Florida manufacturer of an amusement park ride that allegedly caused injuries in Michigan. The basis for jurisdiction in Woods was admittedly stronger than in the present case or in Gray; it is significant that the Court turned to Gray for direction. There the Illinois Supreme Court found jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer of valves that were incorporated by another foreign manufacturer in its water heaters, one of which exploded and injured the plaintiff. The following passage from Gray has relevance to the present appeal:

'In the case at bar defendant does not claim that the present use of its product in Illinois is an isolated instance. While the record does not disclose the volume of Titan's business or the territory in which appliances incorporating its valves are marketed, it is a reasonable inference...