Lima v. Disney World, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-600,76-600
• Citation: 365 N.E.2d 89,7 Ill.Dec. 804,47 Ill.App.3d 658
• Parties: , 7 Ill.Dec. 804 Marie LIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISNEY WORLD, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 89

365 N.E.2d 89

47 Ill.App.3d 658, 7 Ill.Dec. 804

Marie LIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISNEY WORLD, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-600.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

March 30, 1977.

James A. Gately, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

McNAMARA, Justice:

The plaintiff, Marie Lima, filed this action for personal injuries against the defendant, Disney World Company, a non-resident corporation, in the circuit court of Cook County. Defendant filed a special appearance to contest jurisdiction. The trial court entered an order allowing defendant's motion to quash service of summons. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff's suit was brought to recover for injuries sustained while eating "a frozen banana on a stick" which contained a foreign substance and which she purchased from a vendor on defendant's premises in Florida. Service of summons was had in defendant's corporate offices in Florida. Thereafter, defendant filed its motion to quash service of summons on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. In support of its motion, defendant filed the affidavit of Philip N. Smith, its Vice-President-Legal and Secretary. In his affidavit, Smith set forth the following facts. Defendant is a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in the State of Florida. Its sole business activity is the ownership and operation of an entertainment complex in Bay Lake, Florida, and its only place of business is in the State of Florida. Defendant is not qualified to do business in Illinois. It has no assets, offices, places of business, agents, employees, salesmen or representatives anywhere in Illinois. Defendant has neither incurred nor paid taxes to Illinois, and has not appointed an agent for service of process in Illinois. It is not listed in any Illinois telephone directory and does not pay any commission to travel agents in Illinois for booking reservations at its Florida complex. This affidavit was uncontroverted.

Plaintiff seeks to obtain jurisdiction over the non-resident corporation pursuant to Section 17 of the Civil Practice Act (the Illinois long-arm statute) which provides in pertinent part as follows:

"(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits such person, and, if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:

(a) The transaction of any business within this State;

(b) The commission of a tortious act within this State;

(3) Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated herein may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this Section."

Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110, par. 17.

It is undisputed that the alleged tortious act occurred in Florida. The product was sold and consumed in Florida. It is also our view that insufficient minimum contacts exist between defendant and the State of Illinois so as to provide a jurisdictional basis as defined in the long-arm statute.

" * * * Whether due process is satisfied must depend . . . upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure. That clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the State has no contacts, ties or relations."

At p. 320, 66 S.Ct. at p. 160, the court stated that the relationship of the defendant to the forum state must comport with the "traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice" before the state can compel the non-resident defendant to answer and defend the claim against it.

In Nelson v. Miller (1957), 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673, the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 17 of the Civil Practice Act. It noted that while the conscious purpose of the long-arm statute is to assert jurisdiction over non-resident defendants, such purpose is limited to the extent permitted by the due process clause. There is no mechanical test which can be applied. Each case of contested jurisdiction must be evaluated on its particular facts and circumstances. (Stansell v. International Fellowship, Inc. (1974), 22 Ill.App.3d 959, 318 N.E.2d 149.) The determination must be made according to what is fair and reasonable in the particular situation before the court. One factor which does weigh heavily is whether the defendant, through its activities, voluntarily invoked the protections and benefits of the State of Illinois. Muffo v. Forsyth (1976), 37 Ill.App.3d 6, 345 N.E.2d 149.

A case cited by plaintiff in support of her contention that the requisite minimum contact exists between defendant and Illinois to support in personam jurisdiction, Hutter Northern Trust v. Door County Chamber of Commerce (7th Cir. 1968), 403 F.2d 481, is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In Hutter, plaintiff's complaint charged that the chamber of commerce...