Personal Jurisdiction Over A Foreign Defendant In Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute allows the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants under certain circumstances, such as when the defendant has committed a tortious act within the state or has transacted business within the state. Specific requirements and exceptions apply. For more detailed information, consult with a legal professional.

Obtaining personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in Pennsylvania can be challenging. Defendants will often seek to dismiss a case at the outset if any argument can be made that the defendant does not maintain sufficient contact with Pennsylvania to be haled into court there. 

Personal injury attorney John Mattiacci has extensive experience in defeating motions to dismiss based on challenges to jurisdiction. An extensive pre-suit investigation and a thorough knowledge of the law are invaluable in overcoming any challenge to jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in a Recent Personal Injury Case

In Merced v. Gemstar Group, Inc., John Mattiacci sued several defendants for injuries to Carlos Merced. Mr. Merced was seriously injured when marble slabs in a shipping container collapsed and crushed his leg. The marble slabs were sold by Margraf, an Italian company, to Gemstar, a Canadian broker.

The slabs were shipped to the United States from Italy in a shipping container. The slabs arrived in New Jersey and the shipping container was loaded aboard a truck and driven to Philadelphia. The marble slabs collapsed inside the shipping container while workers, including Mr. Merced, were attempting to unload the slabs in Philadelphia.

After the suit was filed, the defendant Margraf filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Margraf argued that it was a foreign company based in Italy that had virtually no contacts with Pennsylvania. This lack was patently insufficient to establish continuous and systematic contacts with Pennsylvania to establish jurisdiction.

John Mattiacci successfully defeated Margraf’s motion to dismiss, by exhaustively investigating the company and its ties to Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States. The probe revealed key facts indicating links through sales, distribution, and marketing efforts by Margraf.

 Pennsylvania’s Long-Arm Statute For Personal Jurisdiction 

The notion of specific jurisdiction versus general jurisdiction deals with the issue of what cases state and federal courts are allowed to hear. There are specific laws at the federal and state level that govern whether courts will exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Long-arm statutes are laws that bring the defendant to the court where the action is proceeding.

This issue of long-arm jurisdiction comes up with a cause of action arising in one state, where the action occurred, which also has ties to another state. The issue of long-arm statutes has been reviewed many times by the US Supreme Court in cases questioning location of the parties and exercising jurisdiction, so the legal precedent is solid. The link to another jurisdiction might be the defendant’s residence, such as when a person leaves their own state to travel to Pennsylvania.

Where there is diversity jurisdiction pursuant to federal law, a federal district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state in which the court sits to the extent authorized by that state’s law.

In Pennsylvania, the long-arm statute provides jurisdiction over a person for causes of action arising from that person transacting business in the state. The Pennsylvania long-arm statute provides broad power to obtain personal jurisdiction on people or companies outside of Pennsylvania.

In the Merced case, John argued numerous portions of Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute and cited Pennsylvania law.  

John Mattiacci used Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute and this case law in conjunction with his investigation into Margraf’s shipments to neighboring states to support personal jurisdiction. John also argued that Margraf had shipped a product to Pennsylvania that caused harm here. Even if the shipment was indirect, John argued that the long-arm statute and case law such as Stokes permitted jurisdiction. The Court agreed.

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

However, even when a state’s laws support jurisdiction over a defendant, that jurisdiction can only be exercised so long as it does not offend the notion of due process provided by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Determining whether jurisdiction violates due process is a two-step process.

1. The court must determine whether the defendant took advantage of the state’s laws and privilege of conducting business within Pennsylvania. In other words, the Court must determine whether the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to establish personal jurisdiction.

2. The Court has to ensure that jurisdiction would be reasonable, in the sense that it aligns with the interests of fair play and substantial justice.

In applying these two factors in the Merced case, Judge Petrese Tucker upheld jurisdiction against Margraf.

 Lessons Learned

Ultimately, this complicated case against several international defendants was resolved in favor of Mr. Merced as the injured victim. However, no recovery would have been possible against Margraf unless this exhaustive investigation and knowledgeable application of the law was performed at the very outset of the case.

Nothing less than hard work, time and dedication could have uncovered the information necessary to win this motion. Relying on information solely provided by a defendant is not enough. If a party wants to win a challenge to jurisdiction, going beyond the pleadings and disclosures and really investigating a defendant is necessary to find the evidence needed to win.

Other Personal Injury Defenses

Lack of jurisdiction is a relatively rare defense in a Pennsylvania personal injury claim. Comparative negligence and assumption of risk are far more prevalent when defendants are trying to avoid liability for personal injury claims.

Comparative Negligence Personal Injury Claim Defense

Pennsylvania law uses the comparative negligence standard in personal injury cases. Under this doctrine, each party to the accident bears a portion of the blame, ranging from zero to 100. For a plaintiff, the best result is a determination that he or she carries zero percent of the negligence and the defendant(s) 100 percent. However, in many cases, lawyers successfully argue that plaintiffs are at least partly to blame.

 Pennsylvania’s 51 Percent Standard

To collect damages in a personal injury case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she is less than 51 percent at fault for the accident. Defense lawyers see this standard as a strong defense in cases where substantial responsibility rests with the plaintiff.

Also, in cases where the percentage of fault is contested, defense lawyers may try to show that a higher than 51 percent share of blame should apply to the plaintiff and the case be dismissed.

 How Comparative Negligence is Applied

Vehicle accident suits often result in a finding of shared negligence. Though some accidents may be solely one driver’s fault, such as rear-end collisions, the action of more than one party causes many crashes. 

One driver may be mainly responsible because he or she proceeded into an intersection without the right of way. The defense could argue comparative negligence if the other driver was speeding. Exceeding the speed limit may have compounded the severity, increasing property damage and injuries. The defense will likely argue the court must reduce its level of responsibility.

Suppose a plaintiff suffered harm because the defendant pulled in front of him at an intersection. The light was green for the plaintiff, so he had the right of way. However, the plaintiff drove at 40 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Had the plaintiff obeyed the speed limit, he may have avoided the accident; in addition, a collision at the legal speed would mitigate the damages.

In such a case, a court may find the plaintiff bears 25 percent of the negligence due to speeding and reduce the plaintiff’s award by that amount.

Assumption of Risk Personal Injury Defense

Personal injury law recognizes that defendants may not be responsible for injuries to plaintiffs if they assume the risk of their own accord. Many activities come with an obvious chance of injury and even death. People who participate in these activities know they may suffer harm; therefore, a court may find the defendant not liable for a personal injury.

For an assumption of risk argument to win, the defense must demonstrate that the harm was closely related to the plaintiff’s activity voluntarily participated.

For example, a person participating in a basketball league has to assume a certain amount of risk inherent in the game. If a poorly maintained backboard falls and injures a player, a court is unlikely to rule the plaintiff assumed that risk. Falling backboards are not inherent risks in basketball games. The property owner is likely responsible for failing to maintain the equipment. In addition, the backboard manufacturer could also be accountable if the product was defective. 

Discuss Your Personal Jurisdiction  Case with an Experienced Lawyer

Facing legal challenges can be overwhelming. Don’t attempt to get through these complex waters alone. At Mattiacci Law, our experienced attorneys are dedicated to providing personalized legal guidance tailored to your specific needs. From contract disputes to personal injury claims, we have the expertise to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome.

Schedule a free consultation today and let us help you find the solutions you need. Contact us at 215-914-6919 to schedule an appointment.

Related Content: What Does a Personal Injury Lawyer Do in Philadelphia?