Hinrichs v. Gen. Motors of Can., Ltd.
Decision Date | 24 June 2016 |
Docket Number | 1140711. |
Citation | 222 So.3d 1114 |
Parties | Florian HINRICHS v. GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA, LTD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard D. Morrison of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for appellant.
Brief in support of appellant's application for rehearing filed by J. Cole Portis and Stephanie S. Monplaisir of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery; and Frank M. Wilson of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery.
Matthew H. Lembke of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham; Charles A. Stewart III of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Montgomery; and Philip E. Holladay, Jr., Harold E. Franklin, Jr., and Susan M. Clare of King & Spaulding LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellee.
Leila H. Watson of Cory Watson, P.C., Birmingham; Rhonda Pitts Chambers of Taylor & Taylor, Birmingham; Bruce McKee of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, Birmingham; and David G. Wirtes of Cunningham Bounds, LLC, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Association for Justice in support of the appellant's application for rehearing.
James R. Pratt III of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for amicus curiae Attorneys Information Exchange Group, Inc., in support of the appellant's application for rehearing.
R. Bernard Harwood, Jr., of Rosen & Harwood, P.A., Tuscaloosa, for amicus curiae Business Council of Alabama in opposition to the application for rehearing.
Harlan I. Prater IV and Nikaa Jordan of Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Birmingham; Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.; and Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Reston, Virginia, for amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., in opposition to the application for rehearing.
Florian Hinrichs, the plaintiff in this case, appeals from a judgment dismissing the case as to defendant General Motors of Canada, Ltd. ("GM Canada"). The trial court made the judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. We affirm.
On June 24, 2007, Hinrichs was riding in the front passenger seat of a 2004 GMC Sierra 1500 pickup truck ("the Sierra") that was owned and operated by his friend Daniel Vinson when they were involved in a motor-vehicle accident. It is undisputed that Hinrichs was wearing his seat belt. A vehicle operated by Kenneth Earl Smith, who was driving under the influence of alcohol, ran a stop sign and collided with the passenger-side door of the Sierra. The Sierra rolled over twice, but landed on its wheels. Hinrichs suffered a spinal-cord injury
in the accident that left him a quadriplegic. The accident occurred in Geneva County. Hinrichs alleges that his injuries were caused by the defective design of the roof of the Sierra that allowed the roof over the passenger compartment to collapse during the rollover and by the defective design of the seat belt in the Sierra, which failed to restrain him.
At the time of the accident, Hinrichs, a German citizen, was a member of the German military; he had been assigned to Fort Rucker for flight training. He and Vinson were in the same training program. Vinson had purchased the Sierra at Hill Buick, Inc., d/b/a O'Reilly Pontiac–Buick–GMC and/or Hill Pontiac–Buick–GMC ("the O'Reilly dealership"), in Pennsylvania in 2003. He drove it to Alabama in 2006 when he was assigned to Fort Rucker. General Motors Corporation, known as Motors Liquidation Company after July 9, 2009 ("GM"), designed the Sierra. GM Canada, whose principal place of business is in Ontario, Canada, manufactured certain parts of the Sierra, assembled the vehicle, and sold it to GM in Canada, where title transferred. GM then distributed the Sierra for sale in the United States through a GM dealer. The Sierra ultimately was delivered to the O'Reilly dealership for sale.
Hinrichs sued GM and Smith in February 2008, alleging a claim against GM under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD") and claims against GM and Smith of negligence and wantonness. Pursuant to Rule 9(h), Ala. R. Civ. P., Hinrichs also alleged claims against several fictitiously named defendants. Hinrichs alleged that design defects in the Sierra were responsible for the accident and his permanent paralysis. Specifically, he alleged that the roof of the Sierra collapsed during the rollover and that the seat belt did not properly restrain him. In 2009, GM filed a petition for bankruptcy, which resulted in the trial court's staying the case as to GM pursuant to the automatic-stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362. Hinrichs thereafter filed a claim in the bankruptcy case and settled with GM.
Hinrichs then filed an amendment to his complaint to substitute GM Canada, the O'Reilly dealership, and Hill Cadillac, Inc., d/b/a Hill Cadillac–Oldsmobile ("the Hill dealership"),1 for three of the fictitiously named defendants. The O'Reilly dealership and the Hill dealership moved to dismiss the action as to them, alleging that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. GM Canada answered the complaint, alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. GM Canada then filed a motion for a hearing on its jurisdictional defense. In the motion, GM Canada alleged:
In support of its motion, GM Canada filed the affidavit of Geoffrey Bailey, the manager of vehicle-product programs and regulations for GM Canada. Bailey testified, in pertinent part:
Hinrichs...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the Town of Ctr. v. 3M Co. (In re Aladdin Mfg. Corp.)
...and privileges of the forum state or "purposefully directed" activity toward the forum state, see Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So. 3d 1114, 1122 (Ala. 2016), and (2) there must be " ‘a relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ " Helicopteros Nacion......
-
Pardue v. Club at 219 Dauphin, Inc. (Ex parte Int'l Creative Mgmt. Partners, LLC)
...Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court recently set forth the applicable law in Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114, 1120–22 (Ala. 2016) :"In Robinson v. Harley–Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or. 572, 316 P.3d 287 (2013), the Supreme Court of Oregon, address......
-
MARC Transp. LLC v. Aviation Dep't, LLC (In re Maint. Grp., Inc.), 1160914
...Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476–77, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ; seeCircus Circus, 317 Or. at 159–60, 854 P.2d 461.’ " Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114, 1121–23 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Robinson v. Harley–Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or. 572, 577–80, 316 P.3d 287, 291–92 (2013) ).MARC con......
-
Riggs v. Krukenberg (Ex parte Krukenberg)
...the children lived in Alabama until July 2015, but she and the children no longer live in the state. See Hinrichs v. General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114, 1123 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014), quoting in turn......
-
Obtaining Personal Jurisdiction: a Deceptively Complex Stage of Litigation
...115 F.3d at 1540 (11th Cir.1997).47. Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37, 39 (Ala.1986).48. Id.49. Hinrichs v. Gen. Motors of Canada, Ltd., 222 So.3d 1114, 1125-26 (Ala.2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2291 (2017).50. Id.51. Id.52. Id.53. Id.54. Id.55. Hinrichs, 222 So. 3d at 1125-26.56. Id. at 1127......