Plaintiff sued the defendant, a Japanese corporation, for a personal injury that occurred while he was riding the ATV manufactured by the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss based lack of personal jurisdiction.
After discussing the history of the "stream of commerce" theory, the court found jurisdiction "because [the defendant] created the distribution network that brought the subject ATV to Missouri[,]" such that "the subject ATV did not end up Missouri on an 'attenuated, random, or fortuitous' basis" (citing Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610, 615 (8th Cir. 1994)).
It lives! The "stream of commerce" theory lives on in the Eighth Circuit! Somehow, the courts in the Midwest are sticking to the old formulation of the "stream of commerce" theory despite the repeated pull back from the U.S. Supreme Court. (Last September, an Illinois appellate court reached the same conclusion.)
Post a Comment