Bridgestone Corp. v. Superior Court

*771 Opinion

A foreign tire manufacturer regularly sold a large volume of tires to a California distributor, one of which allegedly failed and caused injury. The injured party sued the driver and others who then cross-complained against the manufacturer for indemnity and contribution. The manufacturer moved to quash service of summons on the ground that it does not have sufficient contacts with California to be subject to personal jurisdiction here. The trial court denied the motion. We conclude pursuant to Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462 [ 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 ], Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899 , 926 P.2d 1085 ], and Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 664 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 660 P.2d 399 ] that the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities in California and obtained the benefits and protections of California’s laws by selling its products to a California distributor for resale in California. We therefore conclude that the manufacturer is subject to the jurisdiction of California courts, and that the trial court properly denied the…