1. Presentation by: Deb, Nic, Amanda, Anh, Kohei and Kathy W ORLD -W IDE V OLKSWAGEN C ORP VS. W OODSON

2. F ACTS  Defendents  World Wide Volkswagen – Regional Distributor  Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Massena, New York)  Audi – Manufacturer  Volkswagen of America – Importor

3. FACTS  First amended to include:  Volkswagenwrek Aktiengesellschaft (Volkswagen AG)  Second amended to include:  Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi AG) Manufacturing Parent and dropped Volkswagen AG (Primarily substituted Audi AG for Volkswagen AG)

4. FACTS  Plantiffs Harry Robinson and two minor children Kay Robinson on her own They filed separately Woodson was the trial judge on the case who fought to keep it in Oklahoma courts.

5. FACTS Robinsons’ purchased 1976 Audi 100 LS new from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. Due to health issues with Mr. Robinson they needed to move to Tucson, Arizona During move while driving through Creek County toward Oklahoma City on September 21, 1977 Kay was driving with minor children in car – Harry was in a rented U-Haul

6. FACTS While on Interstate 44 in Oklahoma the Audi was struck in the rear by a drunk driver – Lloyd Hull driving a 1971 Ford Torino The impact of the collision itself did not directly injure any of the passengers or driver Crash resulted in Audis’ doors jamming shut and a puncture that accrued in gas tank At this point the Audi burst into flames with Kay and two minor children inside

7. FACTS Kay suffered 3 rd degree burns on 48% of her body – 35% had fatal effects 1 st minor child suffered 1 st and 2 nd degree burns on his body 2 nd minor child suffered 3 rd degree burns on her body Robinsons’ declined to bring Hull due to judgment proof

8. P OINTS O F V IEW Oklahoma  Wanted to keep the case there because that’s where the accident occurred  Robinsons were treated in a hospital in Oklahoma  There was also a witness there who saved them from dying

9. W.W. V OLKSWAGEN  Wanted the case to go to NY because that’s where Seaway dealership sold the Audi to the Robinsons  W.W. Volkswagen distribution franchise was limited to Connecticut, NY, and NJ,  It neither conducted business in Ok nor derived any revenue from the state

10. I SSUES  Can an Oklahoma Court exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident automobile retailer and it’s wholesale distributor in a products liability action, when the defendants only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New York to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma?

11. ISSUE  District Court rejected Petitioners claim that Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend limitations on the State’s jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to restrain Judge Charles S. Woodson from exercising in personam jurisdiction over them due to the lack of “minimal contacts”

12. I SSUE  Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp (401 US 493)  Wyandotte, having no direct contact with Ohio dumped pollutants into a stream outside of Ohio limits, which ultimately flowed through the water system and reached Lake Erie. Consequences of the action occurred in Ohio.

13. I SSUE  State may exercise jurisdiction over a distributor which serves the State “indirectly” by delivering products through commerce, with the expectation that they will be use by consumers in the forum State.  State highway programs contribute in a direct way to the value of petitioners business. Without highway systems there would be no real value to vehicles.

14. I SSUE  Network of dealerships and service departments operate throughout the country under the protection of the laws of the various states, enhancing the value of the petitioners business by facilitating their customers traveling needs.

15. CONCEPT

17. L EGAL R EASONING

19. CONSEQUENCE  World-Wide Volkswagen and Seaway had no evidences in the record of “causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside 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.., in this state” excepted the exclusive Robinson’s Audi.  The phrase “World-Wide and Seaway Volkswagen derives substantial income from automobiles which from time to time are used in the State of Oklahoma finally showed the weak determination of Oklahoma supreme Court toward World-Wide and Seaway Volkswagen.

20. CONSEQUENCE  The rule of the Supreme Court in Oklahoma over the petitioners, World-Wide Volkswagen and Seaway, was authorized by Oklahoma’s “long arm statute” was inadequate and not appropriated to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment :” does not contemplate that a state may take binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations.”  The World-Wide Volkswagen decision had become a landmark in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction because, based on the statute 12 Okla.Stat.1701.03(a)(4), it does not suffice