The Trial Lawyer Winter 2018 - Page 33

Carolina lacked general jurisdiction over the German, French, and Luxembourg companies because the record did not support a finding that those companies were “at home” in North Carolina. Id. at 930. In doing so, the majority opinion explicitly recognized that those companies “were not registered to do business in North Carolina.” Id. at 921. The majority opinion then rejected the argument that the “stream of commerce” doctrine could confer general jurisdiction, reasoning that the “stream of commerce” doctrine confers jurisdiction where a “a nonresident defendant, acting outside the forum, places in the stream of commerce a product that ultimately causes harm inside the forum.” Id. at 926 (emphasis in original). In other words, this analysis is typically germane to specific jurisdiction. Id. However, specific jurisdiction did not exist in Goodyear because “the episode-in-suit-, the bus accident, occurred in France, and the tire alleged to have caused the accident was manufactured and sold abroad.” Id. Goodyear is therefore readily distinguishable from any lawsuit involving either an accident that occurs in the forum state, or a product sold, serviced, inspected, or used in the forum state. Goodyear is also distinguishable from a case involving a defendant registered to do business in the forum The Trial Lawyer x 31