Witt v. Reynolds Metals Co.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 900370,900370 |
| Citation | 397 S.E.2d 873,240 Va. 452 |
| Parties | Jerry L. WITT v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Robert W. Mann (Robert P. Crouch, Jr., Young, Haskins, Mann & Gregory, Martinsville, on briefs), for appellant.
James A.L. Daniel (Martha White Medley, Daniel, Vaughan, Medley & Smitherman, Danville, on brief), for appellee.
Present: CARRICO, C.J., COMPTON, STEPHENSON, RUSSELL, WHITING, and LACY, JJ., and HARRISON, Retired Justice.
In this case we must determine whether the trial court properly dismissed the motion for judgment on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.
Jerry L. Witt was injured as a result of an accident involving a trailer containing heavy aluminum. The trailer had been loaded by employees of the Reynolds Metals Company, the Alloys Plant (Reynolds), in Sheffield, Alabama. The accident occurred near Red Bay, Alabama. Witt, a resident of Henry County, Virginia, filed this negligence action in the Circuit Court of Henry County, alleging that Reynolds was a foreign corporation doing business in Virginia. Process was served on Reynolds' registered agent in Henrico County.
Reynolds filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After submission of briefs and argument of counsel, the trial court granted Reynolds' motion. Witt appealed.
Reynolds concedes that it is amenable to service of process in this state and does not challenge the sufficiency of process served on its registered agent in this case. Reynolds argues, however, that amenability to service "does not automatically confer jurisdiction." Reynolds submits that "whether jurisdiction exists herein depends upon concepts of 'fairness' and 'convenience' and not upon mere compliance with procedural requirements of notice, nor even corporate 'presence.' " Reynolds asserts that because Witt's cause of action is not based on any act arising out of Reynolds' business transactions, activities, or presence in Virginia, there is no rational nexus between Virginia and Witt's claim. Therefore, Reynolds asserts, the trial court properly dismissed the action.
The exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant must comply with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Subjecting a non-resident defendant to the binding judgments of the forum court must "not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (citations omitted). Furthermore, the contacts of the defendant with the forum state must be such as to make it reasonable to require a defense in the forum state. Id. at 317, 66 S.Ct. at 158. The circumstances of each case must be examined to determine whether the requisite contacts are present. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1696, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).
The requirement of a "nexus" between the in-state conduct of a defendant and the cause of action, which Reynolds contends applies in all situations, is not applicable, for example, when a defendant is a resident of the Commonwealth but commits actionable conduct elsewhere. The requirement does apply under the express terms of the long-arm statute (Code § 8.01-328.1), where "minimum contacts" measured in isolated transactions are sufficient to confer jurisdiction only with respect to causes of action arising out of that minimal activity in the forum. But the long-arm statute does not address the doctrine of general jurisdiction arising out of significant presence of a party in Virginia, and the parties agree that the long-arm statute is not applicable in the present case.
Prior to International Shoe and the advent of long-arm legislation, the New York Court of Appeals, in a seminal decision, held that when a corporation is present in the forum by engaging in substantial, on-going business, it is sufficiently present to warrant assertion of personal jurisdiction over the entity. The court held further that "the jurisdiction does not fail because the cause of action sued upon has no relation in its origin to the business here transacted." Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259, 268, 115 N.E. 915, 918 (1917).
International Shoe thereafter expressly recognized that "continuous corporate operations within a state" may be "so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against [the corporation] on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities." 326 U.S. at 318, 66 S.Ct. at 159. A foreign corporation, then, which has its principal place of business in the forum, or otherwise engages in a persistent course of systematic and substantial business activities in the forum state may be subjected to personal jurisdiction there. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952).
Reynolds relies principally upon Ratliff v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verosol BV v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
...jurisdiction" over Hunter-Douglas, see, e.g., Helicopteros 466 U.S. at 414 & n. 9, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 & n. 9; Witt v. Reynolds Metals Co., 240 Va. 452, 397 S.E.2d 873 (1990), such that Hunter-Douglas would be answerable in this forum to any plaintiff, resident or not, on any cause of action.......
-
Chiaphua Components Ltd. v. West Bend Co., 2:00CV85.
...to assert general personal jurisdiction upon a party. See Coastal Video Communications, 59 F.Supp.2d at 569; Witt v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 240 Va. 452, 397 S.E.2d 873 (1990). The Virginia Supreme Court held in Witt that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a corporation which regu......
-
Coastal Video Communications v. Staywell Corp.
...Moreover, contrary to defendant's assertion, general jurisdiction is available under Virginia law. In Witt v. Reynolds Metals Co., 240 Va. 452, 397 S.E.2d 873 (Va.1990) (Lacy, J.), the Virginia Supreme Court held that a corporation that "regularly and systematically does business in Virgini......
-
PENINSULA CRUISE v. New River Yacht Sales
...are present. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Witt v. Reynolds Metals Co., 240 Va. 452, 454, 397 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1990). In World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), the Unite......
-
Getting Personal With Our Neighbors- a Survey of Southern States' Exercise of General Jurisdiction and a Proposal for Extending Georgia's Long-arm Statute
...235 S.W.3d at 170-71. 139. Id. at 171. 140. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A). 141. Id. § 8.01-328.1(C) 142. Witt v. Reynolds Metals Co., 397 S.E.2d 873,875 (Va. 1990). 143. Id. long arm statute as a basis for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, this analysis represents somewhat of a shif......