 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.3/23/1999
CBI Industries, Inc. appeals from the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming it has no ties to Minnesota. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Timothy Davis, the plaintiff in the underlying action, worked in the sandblasting/painting and construction business. He began working for Chicago Bridge and Iron Company in 1976 and later for CBI Na-Con. Both companies were held by the same parent corporation, CBI Industries. Over time Davis developed a medical condition known as silicosis as a result of inhaling airborne sand particles. He brought an action against several manufacturers of the various products and safety equipment he used in his job as a sandblaster. He also brought an action against his former employers, including CBI Industries.
CBI Industries moved for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion. CBI Industries implemented a safety program from 1986 to 1988 to direct safety procedures for both Chicago Bridge and Iron and Na-Con. CBI Industries distributed a manual with mandatory procedures for all employees and supervisors. For 19 years CBI Industries also purchased workers' compensation insurance for the employees working in Minnesota for Chicago Bridge and Iron and Na-Con.
James Rhudy, an employee of CBI Industries, was the director of the safety program. Rhudy stated that the program was enforced at the ground level by foremen and supervisors, who ultimately answered to him and needed his approval to deviate from the program. CBI Industries encouraged supervisors to submit requests for deviations in writing. The results of on-site inspections were reported to Rhudy's department. This same department approved the respirators for use in sandblasting and distributed revised manuals to all foremen. The district court denied CBI Industries' motion to dismiss. CBI Industries appeals.
ISSUE
Do Minnesota courts have personal jurisdiction over CBI Industries?
ANALYSIS
Whether personal jurisdiction exists is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984).
As a threshold matter, a prima facie showing must be made that jurisdiction does not violate "traditional notions of fair play and substantial Justice." Dent-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904, 906-07 (Minn. 1983) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945) (citations omitted)). Minnesota's long-arm statute, Minn. Stat. ยง 543.19, subd. 1 (1998), contains the statutory grounds for asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation that transacts business in Minnesota or commits an act that results in injury in Minnesota. Minnesota courts exercise jurisdiction under the statute subject only to the limits of the federal due process requirements. Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp., 495 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1992). Thus, if the "personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are met, the requirements of the long-arm statute will necessarily be met also." Id.
Another threshold requirement for exerting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident is that the nonresident must also "purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1240 (1958). The nonresident must have reason to expect to be haled into the state's courts. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S. Ct.
Page 1 2 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|