Quick Summary
Robert Nicastro (plaintiff) filed a product liability lawsuit against J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (defendant), a British company. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries while using a metal shearing machine manufactured by the defendant in New Jersey. The issue is whether New Jersey’s courts have jurisdiction over the defendant, who has no physical presence or targeted activities in the state.
Facts of the Case
Robert Nicastro was injured using a metal shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., a British company incorporated and operating in England.
The machine was sold to an independent U.S. distributor who agreed to sell McIntyre’s machines in the United States, including New Jersey.
McIntyre officials attended annual conventions in various states to advertise their machines but never in New Jersey. Only four machines, including the one that caused the injury, ended up in New Jersey.
Procedural History
The case originated in New Jersey state court, where Nicastro filed a product liability claim against J. McIntyre for his injuries.
The trial court ruled that it was under jurisdiction because McIntyre knew or should have known that its products were being distributed nationwide and might reach any state, including New Jersey.
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, and McIntyre appealed.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether New Jersey’s courts have jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer when the manufacturer has no physical presence or targeted activities in the state but its product caused injuries there.
Rule of Law
Personal jurisdiction over a defendant requires purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.
Reasoning and Analysis
The New Jersey Supreme Court relied on the “stream of commerce” doctrine to assert jurisdiction over McIntyre.
However, this approach goes beyond due process requirements and the general rule that a defendant must purposefully avail himself of a specific state’s laws.
Placing products into the stream of commerce without more does not indicate an intent to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular state.
The defendant’s conduct did not demonstrate purposeful availment of the New Jersey market.
Conclusion
McIntyre did not intentionally use the right to conduct activities within the state, so New Jersey’s exercise of jurisdiction over him would be against due process.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision was reversed.
Concurring Opinions
(Justice Breyer and Justice Alito) concurred, stating that precedent has already rejected the theory that a single isolated sale can support personal jurisdiction.
Dissenting Opinions
(Justice Ginsburg and Justices Sotomayor) dissented, arguing that personal jurisdiction should have been found based on the defendant’s efforts to solicit business in the United States.
Key Takeaways
- Jurisdiction requires purposeful availment of a specific state’s laws.
- Placing products in the stream of commerce without more does not establish jurisdiction.
- Personal jurisdiction must be determined on a state-by-state basis.
- Personal jurisdiction is limited by due process concerns.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?