Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.
316 P.3d 287
Or.2013Background
- Plaintiff (Oregon resident) injured in a Wyoming motorcycle accident after a front‑end wobble; motorcycle had been repaired by respondent Grand Teton Cycles (Idaho) the day before the accident.
- Grand Teton operates dealerships in Idaho and Wyoming; no physical presence in Oregon; limited sales to Oregon residents (some via an interactive website) and modest annual revenue from Oregon transactions.
- Plaintiff previously bought the bike in Oregon and had visited Grand Teton at least twice while traveling; she alleged Grand Teton negligently repaired the bike in Idaho.
- Grand Teton moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under ORCP 21 A(2); trial court granted dismissal; Court of Appeals affirmed applying a “substantive relevance” test.
- Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the litigation “arose out of or relate[d] to” Grand Teton’s Oregon contacts under ORCP 4 L and to clarify the proper relatedness standard for specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s claims "arise out of or relate to" Grand Teton’s contacts with Oregon under ORCP 4 L (specific jurisdiction relatedness) | Robinson argued Grand Teton’s website and other Oregon‑directed contacts made litigation in Oregon foreseeable and satisfy relatedness | Grand Teton argued its forum contacts (website, occasional sales) were not substantively connected to the Idaho repairs and therefore did not support specific jurisdiction | Court rejected the strict "substantive relevance" test from Michelin; adopted a combined but‑for + foreseeability test and held plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to Grand Teton’s Oregon activities (no reasonable foreseeability of being sued in Oregon for Idaho repairs) |
| Whether Michelin’s substantive‑relevance approach remains controlling | Robinson urged Michelin should not control given later Supreme Court cases | Grand Teton relied on Michelin and Court of Appeals’ application | Court disavowed Michelin to the extent it imposed a rigid substantive‑relevance/proximate‑cause test |
| Whether a pure but‑for causation test should govern relatedness | Robinson suggested but‑for causation could suffice to establish relatedness | Grand Teton argued but‑for is overbroad and would subject defendants to suit unpredictably | Court rejected pure but‑for test as overinclusive; but‑for may be a threshold consideration only when paired with foreseeability |
| Whether Grand Teton’s website/promotional contacts alone rendered litigation in Oregon reasonably foreseeable | Robinson argued website and promotions put Grand Teton on notice and created foreseeability | Grand Teton stressed plaintiff received repairs in Idaho after a fortuitous breakdown and did not arrange repairs from Oregon; website contacts were too remote | Court held the website/promotions, given the facts, were too attenuated to make litigation in Oregon reasonably foreseeable; dismissed for lack of specific jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Michelin v. Wells, 294 Or. 296 (Or. 1982) (Oregon case that applied a substantive‑relevance test for relatedness; disavowed in part)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment principles)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (‘‘arise out of or relate to’’ and purposeful availment framework)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction; forum‑at‑home standard)
- O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (adopted combined but‑for and foreseeability approach to relatedness)