Rush v. Matson Navigation CompanyRush v. Matson Navigation Company
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Bolin, Ayres, Price
Mrs. Rush brought suit in Caddo Parish, Louisiana to recover damages for Matson Navigation Company for injuries received by her while she was a passenger on defendant‘s
The following facts are undisputed. Mrs. Rush purchased her reservation on the Matson line through Dick Phinney Tours, a California travel agency. Matson is a California corporation with no license to do business nor agent for service in Louisiana. Service of process was made upon Matson under the provisions of
Plaintiff concededly made no inquiry nor did she purchase her ticket or reservations through any of the three Shreveport travel agencies having an agency agreement with Matson for the sale of tickets on the Matson lines. The alleged accident and resulting injuries occurred at sea on Mrs. Rush‘s return trip from Hawaii to California and required surgery and hospitalization in California before she was able to return to Caddo Parish, which is and has been her domicile for many years.
Although the exceptions are three-fold, the resolution of each depends on whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the litigation under
“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the nonresident‘s
(a) transacting any business in this state;
(b) contracting to supply services or things in this state;
(c) causing injury or damage by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission in this state;
(d) causing injury or damage in this state by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission outside of 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; or
(e) having an interest in, using, or possessing a real right or immovable property in this state.”
Louisiana Revised Statute 13:3202 limits the blanket use of the foregoing “long arm statute” as follows:
“When personal jurisdiction over a nonresident is based solely upon R.S. 13:3201, only a cause of action arising from acts or omissions enumerated therein may be asserted against him.” Added Acts 1964, No. 47, § 3. (Emphasis added)
Plaintiff-appellant relies upon sections (a) and (d) of
We find the provisions of
(1) where one of the jurisdictional bases enumerated in subsections (a) through (e) is present; and then only
(2) where the cause of action arises from one of the jurisdictional bases specified.
Jurisdiction does not exist here under subsection (d) as it is expressly limited to cases in which the nonresident has caused “injury or damage in this state * * *“. Appellant‘s injuries were concededly received while traveling between Hawaii and California. If subsection (a) is relied upon plaintiff must show defendant has transacted business in this state and also the cause of action is one “arising from” its business so transacted.
Appellant urges the agency agreements between Matson and the local travel agencies give the courts of Caddo Parish jurisdiction over defendant. However, plaintiff‘s
Appellant contends when a nonresident transacts business of a nature similar to the one out of which a plaintiff‘s claim arises the requirements of subsection (a) of the cited statute are satisfied. In support of this argument plaintiff relies chiefly upon Home Gas and Fuel Company v. Mississippi Tank Company, 143 So.2d 641 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1962) and Aucoin v. Hanson, 207 So.2d 834 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968). We find both distinguishable from the case before us.
Plaintiff‘s claim in Home Gas was for damage to its warehouse which burned in Louisiana; therefore, the cause of action was unquestionably a Louisiana cause of action. Suit was brought and service of process was accomplished under the provisions of
From the facts before us we find no connexity between plaintiff‘s cause of action and defendant‘s business activity within Louisiana. There is no evidence the ticket was purchased from Matson as a result of any activity conducted here by defendant.
In Aucoin there was an action in redhibition for alleged defects or vices discovered in a mare purchased by plaintiff from defendant for breeding purposes. The court found the nonresident defendant had conducted substantial horse dealings in Louisiana and preliminary negotiations for the sale in question had been conducted with plaintiff in Louisiana through defendant‘s agent. The court pointed out in its decision, in order for
We conclude the lower court was correct in sustaining the exception to the jurisdiction and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed at appellant‘s cost.