504 P.3d 52
Or. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs William and Diosdada Cox sued Spirax Sarco, Inc. after a Proton-manufactured hydrogen generator exploded at HP’s Corvallis campus, injuring William Cox.
- Spirax manufactured FA-150 drain traps and sold several to Proton (shipped from Spirax’s South Carolina facility); Proton incorporated those traps into hydrogen generators manufactured in Connecticut.
- HP purchased the generator from Proton; Cox (a Proton technician) was servicing it when it exploded.
- Plaintiffs alleged design, manufacturing, inspection, and warning defects in Spirax’s drain traps as component parts of the generator.
- Spirax moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Spirax conceded purposeful availment based on $1.2 million in Oregon sales (2016–2018), 183 drain-trap sales to Oregon (two FA-150s), and regional sales coverage, but argued those contacts were not related to the claims.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Spirax’s Oregon activities were insufficiently related to the asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Spirax | Spirax purposefully availed itself of Oregon (sales, regional presence) and the injury occurred in Oregon, so specific jurisdiction is proper | Although Spirax made sales in Oregon, those contacts are unrelated to the sale of the FA-150 traps used in the Proton generator; thus no sufficient nexus | No. The court held Spirax’s Oregon contacts were not sufficiently related to plaintiffs’ claims to support specific jurisdiction |
| Whether a stream-of-commerce theory supports jurisdiction | By selling traps to Proton (which supplied the generator to Oregon), Spirax placed its product into the stream of commerce, making jurisdiction foreseeable | Single or limited downstream sales via Proton, without targeted Oregon design, advertising, or marketing, are insufficient to establish jurisdiction | No. A single documented sale through Proton and limited Oregon activity did not satisfy stream-of-commerce requirements or the need for "something more" |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes due process limits on state personal jurisdiction and the purposeful-activity framework)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (extensive, targeted in-state activities can make claims "relate to" forum contacts)
- Cox v. HP Inc., 368 Or 477 (Oregon Supreme Court clarifying the relatedness inquiry post-Ford and rejecting a but-for-only test)
- Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., 354 Or 572 (plaintiff bears burden to plead and prove jurisdictional facts)
- J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (limits of stream-of-commerce theory; single sale generally insufficient)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (stream-of-commerce context and personal jurisdiction principles)
- Willemsen v. Invacare Corp., 352 Or 191 (Oregon case recognizing regular flow of goods through a distributor can support jurisdiction)