World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Citation585 P.2d 351
Decision Date10 October 1978
Docket NumberNo. 52478,WORLD-WIDE,52478
PartiesVOLKSWAGEN CORPORATION and Seaway Volkswagen, Inc., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Charles S. WOODSON, District Judge of Creek County, State of Oklahoma, Kay Eloise Robinson, Eva May Robinson, a minor, by and through her father and next friend, Harry Robinson, and Harry Robinson, Individually, Respondents.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

Original proceeding on application to assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition.

This case involves an original action brought before this Court, asking us to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent trial judge from exercising personal jurisdiction over the out-of-State petitioners.

Finding that the provisions of Oklahoma's Long-Arm Statute, 12 O.S.1971, § 1701.03 et seq., do authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who cause tortious injury in this State by acts or omissions outside the State, when such persons do regularly do or solicit business or engage in any other persistent course of conduct in this State, or derive substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this State, we assume original jurisdiction, but do not issue the writ prayed for.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED AND WRIT DENIED.

Mike Barkley, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Collingsworth & Nelson, Tulsa, for petitioner, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.

Dan A. Rogers, Rogers, Rogers & Jones, Tulsa, for petitioner, Seaway Volkswagen, Inc.

Jefferson G. Greer and Charles A. Whitebook, Tulsa, for respondents.

BARNES, Justice:

This case concerns an original action brought on behalf of World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation and Seaway Volkswagen, Inc., in which the petitioners ask this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent trial judge, the Honorable Charles S. Woodson, from exercising personal jurisdiction over the petitioners, through service under the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, as adopted in Oklahoma at 12 O.S.1971, §§ 1701.01 et seq., commonly referred to as the Oklahoma Long-Arm Statute.

The test for applying Long-Arm jurisdiction in Oklahoma is to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by statute, and, if so, whether such exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process. 1

After examining Oklahoma'a Long-Arm Statute and the facts present in this case, we conclude that jurisdiction over the non-resident petitioners is authorized by statute.

The facts before us in this case are as follows: In September of 1977, an Audi automobile, driven by Kay Eloise Robinson, was struck in the rear by an automobile being driven by a party not involved in the case before us. Mrs. Robinson and her two children, Eva May and George Samuel, were seriously injured in that collision when the gasoline tank of their Audi automobile ruptured, causing a fire in the passenger compartment of that car. As a result of that collision, manufacturers products liability actions were brought on behalf of Mrs. Robinson, her husband and her children against (1) the manufacturer of the automobile, Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft; (2) against the U.S. importer of the automobile, Volkswagen of America, Inc.; (3) against the distributor of the automobile, World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation; and (4) against the retail dealer who sold the Robinsons the car, Seaway Volkswagen, Inc.

It is World-Wide Volkswagen, distributor of Audis in Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, and Seaway Volkswagen, Inc., the dealer who sold the car, that petition this Court seeking a writ of prohibition.

In Oklahoma, jurisdiction over nonresident defendants cannot be inferred, but must affirmatively appear from the record. 2 When a jurisdictional question arises, the burden of proof is upon the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. 3

In the case before us, the respondents contend that the courts of Oklahoma have jurisdiction over the petitioners because they caused a tortious injury in this State, giving rise to jurisdiction under the provisions of 12 O.S.1971, § 1701.03(a)(3) or (4).

Title 12 O.S.1971, § 1701.03, provides in part:

"(a) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person's:

"(1) * * *

"(2) * * *

"(3) causing tortious injury in this state By an act or omission in this state ;

"(4) causing tortious injury in this state By an act or omission outside this state If he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state ; * * *." (Emphasis added)

While it is true that the alleged acts or omissions of the petitioners allegedly caused tortious injury in this State, none of the acts or omissions alleged took place in this State. The defects in the product allegedly existed at the time the product left the hands of the petitioners, and at that time the automobile was not, and had not been, in the State of Oklahoma. We therefore conclude that no acts or omissions on the part of the petitioners took place within the State. In attempting to convince us that acts or omissions of the petitioners did take place within the State, the respondents rely upon Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961).

We do not find the analysis used in Gray v. American Radiator, supra, persuasive. In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court was interpreting a provision of the Illinois Revised Statutes which provided that a nonresident, who either in person or through an agent Commits a tortious act within Illinois, submits to the jurisdiction of Illinois, and may be served by means of the State Long-Arm Statute. In determining whether the manufacturer of a defective safety valve, which was allegedly defective at the time of manufacture in Ohio, committed a "tortious act" in the State of Illinois, the Court held that a tort had been committed within the jurisdiction because the injury which resulted from the defect occurred in Illinois. In so ruling, the Court held that the place of a wrong is where the last event necessary to render the actor liable takes place, and that the last act to render the manufacturer liable was the sustaining of an injury in Illinois by the plaintiff.

Our statute is Unlike the Illinois statute. The Illinois st...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1980
    ...Nor can jurisdiction be supported on the theory that petitioners earn substantial revenue from goods used in Oklahoma. Pp. 295-299. Okl., 585 P.2d 351, Herbert Rubin, New York City, for petitioners. Jefferson G. Greer, Tulsa, Okl., for respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of......
  • Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., s. 77-1827
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 21, 1980
    ...with constitutional requirements of due process. Timberlake v. Summers, 413 F.Supp. 708, 710 (W.D.Okl.); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 585 P.2d 351, 352-353 (Okl.); rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490. We conclude that the applicable Oklahoma statu......
  • Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1979
    ...and indeed probable. See Reilly v. Phil Tolkan Pontiac, Inc., 372 F.Supp. 1205, 1207 (D.C.N.J.1974); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 585 P.2d 351, 354 (Okl.1978), Cert. granted, 440 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1212, 59 L.Ed.2d (1979). 11 Our nation has developed a single nationwide highway s......
  • Roger Williams General Hospital v. Fall River Trust Co., 78-365-A
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • January 6, 1981
    ...is by its very design and purpose so mobile that petitioners can foresee its possible use in Oklahoma." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, Okl., 585 P.2d 351, 354 (1978). 4 Under this rationale, the state court concluded that sufficient minimum contacts had been established to allow th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Professional liability and international lawyering: an overview.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 77 No. 1, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...v. MidweSterling, 515 S.E.2d 46 (N.C. App. 1999); NH ST [section] 510:4 (2003) (New Hampshire); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 585 P.2d 351 (Okla. 1978); Freeman v. Duffy, 983 P.2d 533 (Or. 1999); Kenny v. Alexson Equipment Co., 432 A.2d 974 (Pa. 1981); RI St. [section] 9-5-33 (200......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT