World Wide Volkswagon, et al v Judge Woodson, et al
585 P 2d 351 [1978]
Author:- Sam Biers

Relevant Facts: In 1977 an Audi vehicle driven by Mrs. Robinson was struck in the rear by a car driven by a party not involved in this action.  Mrs. Robinson, her two children were seriously injured when the gasoline tank of their Audi ruptured causing a fire in the passenger compartment. WWV is the distributor of the automobile, and Seaway is the retail dealer who sold the vehicle.  WWV and Seaway are asking this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue a Writ of Probation, barring the Trial Judge Woodson, from exercising personal jurisdiction over the petitioners by way of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedures Act.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the exercise of jurisdiction over non resident petitioners is authorized by OK’s long arm statute, and, if so, whether such exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process?

Court’s Holding: Jurisdiction over non resident petitioners is authorized by statute, and consistent with due proces.

Procedure: Pet. brought original action asking S Ct to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting respondent trial judge from exercising personal jurisdiction over them.

Original jurisdiction assumed and original prohibition denied.

Law or Rule(s): a) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person’s: 3) causing tortuous injury in this state by an act or omission in this state; or 4) causing tortuous injury in this state by an act 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 or services rendered, in this state.

Court Rationale: It is true that the alleged acts or omissions of the petitioners allegedly causing injury in this State, but none of the acts or omissions allegedly took place in this State.  The acts or omission of the petitioners, which were alleged in the petition, were not acts or omissions in this State and therefore no power to exercise personal jurisdiction over the petitioners existed by virtue of Statute section a) 3).  The petitioners did derive substantial revenue from goods used w/i the State, and because alleged acts or omissions on the part of petitioner outside this State allegedly caused tortuous injury in this State, the court had the power to exercise personal jurisdiction over the petitioners.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The trial ct lacks the power to assert personal jurisdiction.  The petitioners have no contact with the state the action or the injury arose within.

Defendant’s Argument: The petitioners derived substantial economic benefits as a result of the sale of their vehicles, which by their nature are mobile and it is reasonable to foresee their use in this State.