earticle

영어

In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court made two decisions regarding the issue of whether state courts may assert jurisdiction over foreign corporations of product liability suits. These two decisions are worth reviewing since its Asahi decision in 1987, the Court deeply discussed the court-created jurisdictional theories including the minimum contact standard and the stream-of-commerce theory. The Court in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown denied jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts over three foreign subsidiaries of Goodyear in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France for the accident occurred in France. The Court found that the activities of foreign subsidiaries were single, occasional or unorganized activities, and are not enough to render themselves to the forum's jurisdiction. The Court in J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro also did not approve the jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts over an English manufacturer although the injury caused by its machine occurred in the forum state. The Court strictly interpreted the stream-of-commerce test, by noting that mere placement of the foreign company’s product is not enough to assert jurisdiction over it unless other conducts, such as advertising, direct selling or marketing in the forum, are accompanied. Taking the chance to introduce the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding personal jurisdiction, the paper also looks over various jurisdictional theories over personal jurisdiction.