Woods v. Edgewater Amusement Park

• Decision Date: 03 March 1969
• Docket Number: No. 12,12
• Citation: 381 Mich. 559,165 N.W.2d 12
• Parties: Margaret WOODS, Next Friend of Margaret Jo Delle Woods, a Minor, and Randell Woods, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. EDGEWATER AMUSEMENT PARK, a Michigan corporation, Leo Pike and Stahl Enterprises, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and B. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, jointly and severally, Defendants, B. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Margaret Jo Delle WOODS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. B. A. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 12

165 N.W.2d 12

381 Mich. 559

Margaret WOODS, Next Friend of Margaret Jo Delle Woods, aMinor, and Randell Woods, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v.EDGEWATER AMUSEMENT PARK, a Michigan corporation, Leo Pike and Stahl Enterprises, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and B.

A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, jointly

and severally, Defendants,

B. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation,

Defendant and Appellant.

Margaret Jo Delle WOODS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.B. A. SCHIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. 12.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 3, 1969.

Davidson, Gotshall, Kelly, Hasley & Kohl, Graff Kennelly, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Samuel W. Barr, Detroit, for defendant-appellantB. A. Schiff.

Before the Entire Bench.

KELLY, Justice.

The motion to quash of defendantB. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation (hereinafter referred to as defendant Schiff), was denied by the Wayne county circuit court and defendant Schiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals was transferred to this Court.

Appellant claims: 1) that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Wayne county circuit court under the 'long arm statute' of the State of Michigan¹; and 2) that plaintiffs did not obtain jurisdiction under General Court Rules 1963, 105.4, by service of a copy of the summons and second amended complaint (June 5, 1963) by registered mail upon defendant Schiff in Florida (return receipt dated June 10, 1963) and, also, on the Michigan Corporation & Securities Commission(return receipt dated June 7, 1963).

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint (action No. 1 alleged that defendant Schiff manufactured at its Florida place of business an amusement park ride known as the 'Wild Mouse,' and installed said ride at Edgewater Amusement Park, Detroit, Michigan; that the defendant Edgewater Amusement Park is a Michigan profit corporation and operated, within the county of Wayne, Edgewater Park; that defendantStahl Enterprises, Inc., a Michigan corporation, owned and operated Edgewater Amusement Park, and that Leo Pike, another defendant, owned and operated the ride that was called the 'Wild Mouse'; that defendant Schiff owed a duty to the plaintiffs to manufacture, design and construct the amusement device in a careful and workmanlike manner so that it would operate correctly, and that said defendant breached its duty in this regard; that all above named defendants jointly and severally owned and operated the 'Wild Mouse,' which on June 18, 1960, was operated in a negligent manner, resulting in personal injuries to plaintiffMargaret JoDelle Woods, who, for a consideration, rode the 'Wild Mouse.'

Defendant-appellant Schiff appeared specially for the purpose of filing its motion to quash service and claimed in the motion that it was not amenable to service under the aforementioned Court Rule inasmuch as it had never at any time had any employees in the State of Michigan, did business in Michigan, or transacted any business in Michigan.

An affidavit attached to the motion set forth that defendant Schiff manufactured and sold the 'Wild Mouse' to a Roger Haney in the State of New Jersey for installation at Haslett, Michigan; that said Roger Haney sold said amusement ride to Harry Stahl, individually, and in July 1959, and subsequently as an accommodation to Roger Haney who had purchased said ride on installment contract, B. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., refinanced the ride at the Coral Gables First National Bank in Coral Gables, Florida, to assist Harry Stahl to acquire same.The affidavit further set forth that defendant Schiff never made a sale to Stahl Enterprises, Inc., one of the defendants herein, or Edgewater Amusement Park, or Leo Pike, the other two defendants, and had nothing to do with the installation and did not assist in the installation of the 'Wild Mouse' at the place where the minor plaintiff contends she was injured.

After the above mentioned June 1963 service, plaintiffs served a new summons (in action No. 1) dated March 13, 1964, under the 'long arm statute' and 1963 General Court Rules, by the sheriff of Dade County, Florida, upon defendant Schiff.This second summons was not a duplicate of the previous June 5, 1963 summons, and defendant Schiff again filed a motion to quash on the ground that it had no minimal contacts in Michigan and, therefore, was not subject to Michigan jurisdiction.

Before decision was made by the trial court(action No. 1), the minor plaintiff, who had attained her majority, filed her individual action (action No. 2) against defendant Schiff solely, and personal service was made on said defendant in Florida on August 29, 1964.

QUESTIONNO. 1

'Is the defendant, B. A. Schiff & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, subject to the jurisdiction of the Wayne county circuit court, in this action, under the 'long arm statute' of the State of Michigan?'

This 'long arm statute'(C.L.S.1961, § 600.715(Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.715)) was given effect as of January 1, 1963, and reads in part:

'The existence of any of the following relationships between a corporation or its agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over such corporation and to enable such courts to render personal judgments against such corporation arising out of the act or acts which create any of the following relationships:

'(1) The transaction of any business within the state.

'(2) The doing or causing any act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.'

We quote with approval from the appellant's brief:

'The application of a state statute permitting service on a foreign corporation is limited by constitutional requirements of due process as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.The test of due process, in ultimate simplicity, is: how far can a state go in extending its jurisdiction over a foreign corporation?

'To reach this determination, courts have considered the evolution of in personam jurisdiction on non-residents from Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714(24 L.Ed. 565), through the leading cases of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154(90 L.Ed. 95), McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199(2 L.Ed.2d 223), andHanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228(2 L.Ed.2d 1283).'

Pennoyer v. Neff(1877), Supra, declared that a state did not have jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant unless service of process was personally served upon the defendant within the forum state.

Sixty-eight years later, the United States Supreme Court established a new jurisdictional test over a non-resident defendant in International Shoe Co. v. Washington(1945), Supra, and in this decision abandoned the 'consent' and 'presence' theories of earlier decisions and adopted the new test--Did the defendant have such 'minimum contacts' with plaintiff's State that maintenance of the action would not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice?'

In MeGee v. International Life Ins. Co.(1957), Supra, the Supreme Court approved the previous International Shoe Company jurisdictional test and explained the expansion of the permissible scope of State jurisdiction by calling attention to the fundamental transformation of our National economy over the years and the expansion of modern transportation and communication, thus making it much less burdensome for the non-resident defendant to resist a plaintiff's claims.

The final approval of the International Shoe Company decision is found in Hanson v. Denckla(1958), 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, and appellant quotes therefrom as follows:

'It 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.'(p. 253, 78 S.Ct. p. 1240)

'But it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts.* * * Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation.They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had the 'minimal contacts' with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him.'(p. 251, 78 S.Ct. p. 1238)

Appellant, after stating that 'International Shoe, supra, gives no specific pronouncement of what is meant by 'minimum contacts," cited Federal District Court and State Court decisions to support its contention that minimum contacts mean something more than one contact and under the heading 'Conclusion'(Question 1) states:

'In the principal cases, plaintiffs have offered no proofs to counter the affidavit offered by defendantB. A. Schiff to the effect that it has had no contact with Michigan other than the one isolated sale of the 'Wild Mouse' to a person other than the owner of the 'Wild Mouse' on the date of the alleged injury; that the B. A. Schiff company had nothing to do with the installation of the device at Edgewater Park; and that the sale of the device would be the only connection of the company with Michigan, which sale occurred in 1958, approximately two years before the alleged incident for which damages are claimed.* * *

'The only evidence before this Court, or the trial court, indicates a lack of any but a bare, isolated contact between B. A. Schiff and Michigan some six years before the 'long arm'statute was given existence.'

Appellee calls attention to the United States Supreme Courtcase of McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., Supra, and State supreme courtcases holding that a single transaction is...