Dec 10

Dec 10 SCOTUS considers constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction in Ford Motor Company v Bandemer By Brandon Gowans, Breanna Hughes, Amanda Kendic, Jessica Ostrowski, Snow Steel, Et. al.

The Constitution provides the framework for American government, establishing rights, structure and power. It was written in a time period much different from the ones that followed and ultimately, the one we currently face. Thus, the original guidelines have grown and developed with time and the Constitution is continuously being interpreted and applied by various levels of the court system. These rulings have the ability to establish precedents and norms that can last for decades to come. The resolution of Ford Motor Company v Bandemer, has the potential to do just that, set a precedent of subjecting out-of-state manufacturers to increased liability across the United States.

Ford Motor Company is an incredibly expansive American cooperation with headquarters in Michigan and incorporations in Delaware. Ford motors designs and manufactures automobiles, which are then sold to independently owned and operated dealers across the country. The case of Ford Motor Company v Bandemer arose when Adam Bandemer was injured in the state of Minnesota while riding in a 1994 Ford Crown Victoria. Upon rear-ending a snow plow, the airbag failed to deploy leaving Bandemer with permanent injuries. He sued Ford in a Minnesota state court, claiming product liability and negligence. Ford moved to dismiss the suit due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The question faced is whether a state court, consistent with the Due Process clause, can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when none of the defendants contacts with that state caused the plaintiffs’ claim.

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, limit the courts authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants. It is important to note that jurisdiction falls under two categories, general and specific. A court with general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant can hear any and all claims against that defendant, but only if their affiliations with the state “are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home there”. A court with specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant can only exercise their power when the claims at issue “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s in-state activities. While the aforementioned standards may appear abundantly clear, state and federal courts have continuously faced conflicting results and the Supreme Court has repeatedly found it necessary to intervene. They are once again facing the daunting task of clarifying the constitutional limits on the courts power to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants.

The Due Process Clause of specific jurisdiction plays a key role in this case when determining whether or not the Minnesota state court has authority to exercise authority over Ford motor company. The Supreme Court must decide whether the in-state court can assert specific jurisdiction against an out-of-state manufacturer and whether the requirements are met when the defendant’s contacts with such state did not cause the claims. In this case of product liability, the court is determining if there is a connection between the corporation and Bandemer’s in-state activities, and whether Ford could have reasonably foreseen its product being used in the state of Minnesota. The Ford Crown Victoria, involved in this case, was manufactured in Canada, sold at a North Dakota Ford dealership and then later registered in Minnesota. It is clear that Ford did not produce or intentionally sell its car within the state where the lawsuit has been filed by Bandemer.

For Minnesota to exercise its personal jurisdiction, Ford must have minimum contacts with the state and Bandemer’s injuries must be shown to have arisen from these contacts. The requirement of minimum contact means the court must be able to show that Ford took actions that were purposely directed towards the state of Minnesota. Bandemer has argued that his injuries, which arose from operation of a Ford vehicle, establish Ford’s minimum contact with the state requirement. However, Ford has proposed a “proximate-cause requirement” where the state of Minnesota can exercise specific jurisdiction only if the plaintiff can show Bandemers’ contacts with the forum caused the injuries. In the past, the Supreme Court has held that the mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient enough connection to the forum. Therefore, in order to establish contacts, the accident in state will not likely be sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company. The U.S. Supreme Court is left to determine whether specific personal jurisdiction can extend to manufacturers in states where the manufacturers conduct business but do not produce, distribute, design or sell the product in question within the state in question. Ford’s limited in-state activity may call for the U.S. Supreme Court to refine the definition of “minimum contacts” when analyzing the concept of personal jurisdiction.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that in order “to establish personal jurisdiction, no causal relationship was necessary between a defendant’s forum contacts and the claims at issue. It was enough to show that Ford marketed and sold the same type of car in Minnesota, and that some of the relevant events giving rise to the suit occurred in the state.” In dissent, two justices responded that the design, assembly, and sale of the allegedly defective vehicle took place in other states, and accused the majority of eliding the difference between general and specific jurisdiction. The matter of Bandemer is an example of the difficulties faced when establishing jurisdiction. Ford is tightly connected to the state of Minnesota marketing its products in-state, establishing dealerships since 1903 and selling more than two thousand Crown Victoria cars to Minnesota residents. However, the product in question did not enter the state through Fords actions, rather a secondary reseller not affiliated with the cooperation. A decade ago, this case would have been laughable within the court as generations of judges and scholars established the norm that companies could be sued over any and all products released into the stream of commerce, regardless of where they were manufactured. However, over time through citing of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing the right of due process, the Supreme Court continuously rules that companies must have continuous and systematic connections with a state in order to be sued there.

The Supreme Court ruling will be important to manufacturers of products that do not stay in one location but rather travel with the consumer. It will impact the scope to which vehicle manufactures can be sued outside their base of operations state. The case of Ford Motor Company v Bandemer, could potentially change the future landscape in the defense of car manufacturers in product liability. If the Supreme Court finds that marketing of a product satisfies the minimum contact, this could set a precedent of subjecting out-of-state companies to the jurisdiction of every state in which cases arise, subjecting companies to personal jurisdiction nationwide. This may in turn cause consumers to file actions where they believe they can obtain the most friendly court and jury panel. On the other hand, a Supreme Court decision affirming the denial of Ford’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction would raise due process concerns for manufacturers in the U.S. As shown, Ford Motor Company v Bandemer could play a key role in reshaping the guidelines for personal jurisdiction and setting precedents for future cases to follow.

Quinlyn Beaver, Jordan Conestabile, Richard Felt Cooper, Brandon Gowans, Breanna Hughes, Amanda Kendic, Jessica Ostrowski, and Snow Steel are Political Science students at Utica College