Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation
282 P.3d 867
Or.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are Oregon residents alleging death of their mother due to a defect in a CTE battery charger sold with Invacare wheelchairs.
- CTE is a Taiwanese manufacturer; Invacare is an Ohio company; Invacare sold wheelchairs with CTE chargers in Oregon.
- CTE entered a master supply agreement with Invacare to supply battery chargers; CTE promised to comply with laws and to defend Invacare against claims.
- From 2006-2007 Invacare sold 1,102 wheelchairs in Oregon with CTE chargers; CTE received about $30,929 from those sales.
- CTE moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; trial court denied; mandamus petitions followed; Nicastro remand occurred.
- Court concludes Oregon may exercise specific jurisdiction over CTE based on a regular course of sales and relationship between forum and litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon courts have specific jurisdiction over CTE. | Willemsen asserts CTE's substantial Oregon sales create minimum contacts. | CTE argues no purposeful availment; distribution through Invacare does not target Oregon. | Oregon may exercise specific jurisdiction over CTE. |
| Does the volume of CTE's sales to Invacare in Oregon constitute a regular course of sales. | Large Oregon sales show regular flow to the forum. | Distribution through Invacare is not direct targeting by CTE. | Yes; 1,102 wheelchairs with CTE chargers in Oregon over two years support regular course of sales. |
| How Nicastro and Asahi influence the jurisdiction analysis. | Nicastro's Breyer concurrence supports minimum contacts from regular sales. | Nicastro plurality would require targeting; Asahi limits may apply. | Breyer's rationale controls; regular sales satisfy minimum contacts here. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. | Oregon has strong state interest in redressing injuries occurring there. | Fair play concerns limit jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers. | Jurisdiction would not offend due process; forum is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery Am., Ltd., 564 U.S. _ (2011) (multiple views on sufficiency of minimum contacts; Breyer concurrence controlling on remand)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (discusses regular flow vs. targeted contacts and fair play concerns)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due process limits on jurisdiction based on foreseeability)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (splintered opinions; use narrowest rationale to decide)