Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd. v. Clarence A. Hollingsworth

This appeal challenges the in personam jurisdiction of the District Court of the District of Hawaii over Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd., a corporation engaged in the manufacturing of motor bodies in England. 1 The court concluded that since the action was founded on diversity of citizenship, the amenability of Duple to suit would depend on Hawaii law and that Duple was personally subject to the court’s jurisdiction under Hawaii’s “long-arm” statute by virtue of out-of-state service of process as there provided. 2 *233 The claim of the plaintiffs-appellees against appellant is one of products liability for injuries suffered in Hawaii and jurisdiction was founded on § (1) (b) of the Hawaii statute: “The commission of a tortious act within this State.” 3 Upon this appeal appellant contends (1) that, as a matter of statutory construction, it committed no tortious act within the State of Hawaii, and (2) that in any event, under the circumstances of this case, the due process concepts of fair play and substantial justice bar application to it of the Hawaii statute.

1. Appellant contends that the negligence charged against it was in the manufacture of a coach body; that this occurred in…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. The extension of Hawaii’s “long-arm” statute so that it stretches halfway around the world to grab the alien appellant brings to mind a caricature of Blind Justice with arms of rubber! I see such a caricature as depicting, and the majority's opinion as constituting, an implausible denial of due process as well as an unnecessary intrusion into the field of international relations. While the majority opinion is admittedly a scholarly exposition of prior case law, my Brothers seem to overlook the fact that every cited case deals with suits against American corporations and that the rationales of those cases are tailored to fit the needs of interstate commerce within this Country. I submit that a sympathetic reading of those cases reveals that they do not, and cannot, deal with the problem of the jurisdiction of an American state over an English corporation. The same reading demonstrates the injustice of the result reached in the majority opinion.

The extensive treatment of in personam jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in recent years has emphasized one recurrent theme. The exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant can be maintained…

417 F.2d 231 DUPLE MOTOR BODIES, LTD., Appellant, v. Clarence A. HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Appellees. No. 22826. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. September 19, 1969. Rehearing Denied December 8, 1969. Edmund Burke (argued), of Henshaw, Conroy & Hamilton, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant. Burnham H. Greeley (argued) and Wilfred K. Watanabe, Stuart M. Cowan (argued), Honolulu, Hawaii, Peter A. Donahoe, William Fleming, Padgett, Greeley, Marumoto & Akinaka, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel, for appellee. Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and ELY, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges the in personam jurisdiction of the District Court of the District of Hawaii over Duple Motor Bodies, Ltd., a corporation engaged in the manufacturing of motor bodies in England. 1 The court concluded that since the action was founded on diversity of citizenship, the amenability of Duple to suit would depend on Hawaii law and that Duple was personally subject to the court's jurisdiction under Hawaii's "longarm" statute by virtue of out-of-state service of process as there provided. 2 The claim of the plaintiffs-appellees against appellant is one of products liability for…