CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.

[287] Herbert Rubin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Dan A. Rogers, Bernard J. Wald, and Ian Ceresney.

Jefferson G. Greer argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Charles A. Whitebook.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue before us is whether, consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action, when the defendants' only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New York to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma.

[288] I

Respondents Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi automobile from petitioner Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Seaway), in Massena, N. Y., in 1976. The following year the Robinson family, who resided in New York, left that State for a new home in Arizona. As they passed through the State of Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi in the rear, causing a fire which severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children.^[1]

The Robinsons^[2] subsequently brought a products-liability action in the District Court for Creek County, Okla., claiming that their injuries resulted from defective design and placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system. They joined as defendants the automobile's manufacturer, Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi); its importer, Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen); its regional distributor, petitioner World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. (World-Wide); and its retail dealer, petitioner Seaway. Seaway and World-Wide entered special appearances,^[3] claiming that Oklahoma's exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend the limitations on the State's jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.^[4]

The facts presented to the District Court showed that World-Wide is incorporated and has its business office in New [289] York. It distributes vehicles, parts, and accessories, under contract with Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Seaway, one of these retail dealers, is incorporated and has its place of business in New York. Insofar as the record reveals, Seaway and World-Wide are fully independent corporations whose relations with each other and with Volkswagen and Audi are contractual only. Respondents adduced no evidence that either World-Wide or Seaway does any business in Oklahoma, ships or sells any products to or in that State, has an agent to receive process there, or purchases advertisements in any media calculated to reach Oklahoma. In fact, as respondents' counsel conceded at oral argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 32, there was no showing that any automobile sold by World-Wide or Seaway has ever entered Oklahoma with the single exception of the vehicle involved in the present case.

Despite the apparent paucity of contacts between petitioners and Oklahoma, the District Court rejected their constitutional claim and reaffirmed that ruling in denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.^[5] Petitioners then sought a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma to restrain the District Judge, respondent Charles S. Woodson, from exercising in personam jurisdiction over them. They renewed their contention that, because they had no "minimal contacts," App. 32, with the State of Oklahoma, the actions of the District Judge were in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma denied the writ, 585 P. 2d 351 (1978),^[6] holding that personal jurisdiction over petitioners was authorized by Oklahoma's "long-arm" statute, [290] Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, § 1701.03 (a) (4) (1971).^[7] Although the court noted that the proper approach was to test jurisdiction against both statutory and constitutional standards, its analysis did not distinguish these questions, probably because § 1701.03 (a) (4) has been interpreted as conferring jurisdiction to the limits permitted by the United States Constitution.^[8] The court's rationale was contained in the following paragraph, 585 P. 2d, at 354:

"In the case before us, the product being sold and distributed by the petitioners is by its very design and purpose so mobile that petitioners can foresee its possible use in Oklahoma. This is especially true of the distributor, who has the exclusive right to distribute such automobile in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The evidence presented below demonstrated that goods sold and distributed by the petitioners were used in the State of Oklahoma, and under the facts we believe it reasonable to infer, given the retail value of the automobile, that the petitioners derive substantial income from automobiles which from time to time are used in the State of Oklahoma. This being the case, we hold that under the facts presented, the trial court was justified in concluding [291] that the petitioners derive substantial revenue from goods used or consumed in this State."

We granted certiorari, 440 U. S. 907 (1979), to consider an important constitutional question with respect to state-court jurisdiction and to resolve a conflict between the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and the highest courts of at least four other States.^[9] We reverse.

II

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 91 (1978). A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732-733 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945). In the present case, it is not contended that notice was inadequate; the only question is whether these particular petitioners were subject to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts.

As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but [292] distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.

The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically described in terms of "reasonableness" or "fairness." We have said that the defendant's contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit "does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940). The relationship between the defendant and the forum must be such that it is "reasonable . . . to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there." 326 U. S., at 317. Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness is the understanding that the burden on the defendant, while always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be considered in light of other relevant factors, including the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute, see McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957); the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 92, at least when that interest is not adequately protected by the plaintiff's power to choose the forum, cf. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 211, n. 37 (1977); the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies, see Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 93, 98.

The limits imposed on state jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause, in its role as a guarantor against inconvenient litigation, have been substantially relaxed over the years. As we noted in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., supra, at 222-223 [293] this trend is largely attributable to a fundamental transformation in the American economy:

"Today many commercial transactions touch two or more States and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity."

The historical developments noted in McGee, of course, have only accelerated in the generation since that case was decided.

Nevertheless, we have never accepted the proposition that state lines are irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes, nor could we, and remain faithful to the principles of interstate federalism embodied in the Constitution. The economic interdependence of the States was foreseen and desired by the Framers. In the Commerce Clause, they provided that the Nation was to be a common market, a "free trade unit" in which the States are debarred from acting as separable economic entities. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 538 (1949). But the Framers also intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including, in particular, the sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States—a limitation express or implicit in both the original scheme of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hence, even while abandoning the shibboleth that "[t]he authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established," Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, at 720, we emphasized that the reasonableness of asserting jurisdiction over the defendant must be assessed "in the context of our federal system of government," [294] International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 317, and stressed that the Due Process Clause ensures not only fairness, but also the "orderly administration of the laws," id., at 319. As we noted in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 250-251 (1958):

"As technological progress has increased the flow of commerce between the States, the need for jurisdiction over nonresidents has undergone a similar increase. At the same time, progress in communications and transportation has made the defense of a suit in a foreign tribunal less burdensome. In response to these changes, the requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresidents have evolved from the rigid rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, to the flexible standard of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310. But it is a mistake to assume that this trend heralds the eventual demise of all restrictions on the personal jurisdiction of state courts. [Citation omitted.] Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States."

Thus, the Due Process Clause "does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319. Even if the defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to render a valid judgment. Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 251, 254.

[295] III

Applying these principles to the case at hand,^[10] we find in the record before us a total absence of those affiliating circumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma. They close no sales and perform no services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of Oklahoma law. They solicit no business there either through salespersons or through advertising reasonably calculated to reach the State. Nor does the record show that they regularly sell cars at wholesale or retail to Oklahoma customers or residents or that they indirectly, through others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma market. In short, respondents seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom: the fortuitous circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma.

It is argued, however, that because an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose it was "foreseeable" that the Robinsons' Audi would cause injury in Oklahoma. Yet "foreseeability" alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. In Hanson v. Denckla, supra, it was no doubt foreseeable that the settlor of a Delaware trust would subsequently move to Florida and seek to exercise a power of appointment there; yet we held that Florida courts could not constitutionally [296] exercise jurisdiction over a Delaware trustee that had no other contacts with the forum State. In Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84 (1978), it was surely "foreseeable" that a divorced wife would move to California from New York, the domicile of the marriage, and that a minor daughter would live with the mother. Yet we held that California could not exercise jurisdiction in a child-support action over the former husband who had remained in New York.

If foreseeability were the criterion, a local California tire retailer could be forced to defend in Pennsylvania when a blowout occurs there, see Erlanger Mills, Inc. v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, Inc., 239 F. 2d 502, 507 (CA4 1956); a Wisconsin seller of a defective automobile jack could be haled before a distant court for damage caused in New Jersey, Reilly v. Phil Tolkan Pontiac, Inc., 372 F. Supp. 1205 (NJ 1974); or a Florida soft-drink concessionaire could be summoned to Alaska to account for injuries happening there, see Uppgren v. Executive Aviation Services, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 165, 170-171 (Minn. 1969). Every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of process. His amenability to suit would travel with the chattel. We recently abandoned the outworn rule of Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215 (1905), that the interest of a creditor in a debt could be extinguished or otherwise affected by any State having transitory jurisdiction over the debtor. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186 (1977). Having interred the mechanical rule that a creditor's amenability to a quasi in rem action travels with his debtor, we are unwilling to endorse an analogous principle in the present case.^[11]

[297] This is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 97-98; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 216; and see id., at 217-219 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). The Due Process Clause, by ensuring the "orderly administration of the laws," International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 319, gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.

When a corporation "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State," Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 253, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State. Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others. The forum State does not [298] exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State. Cf. Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N. E. 2d 761 (1961).

But there is no such or similar basis for Oklahoma jurisdiction over World-Wide or Seaway in this case. Seaway's sales are made in Massena, N. Y. World-Wide's market, although substantially larger, is limited to dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. There is no evidence of record that any automobiles distributed by World-Wide are sold to retail customers outside this tristate area. It is foreseeable that the purchasers of automobiles sold by World-Wide and Seaway may take them to Oklahoma. But the mere "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." Hanson v. Denckla, supra, at 253.

In a variant on the previous argument, it is contended that jurisdiction can be supported by the fact that petitioners earn substantial revenue from goods used in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Supreme Court so found, 585 P. 2d, at 354-355, drawing the inference that because one automobile sold by petitioners had been used in Oklahoma, others might have been used there also. While this inference seems less than compelling on the facts of the instant case, we need not question the court's factual findings in order to reject its reasoning.

This argument seems to make the point that the purchase of automobiles in New York, from which the petitioners earn substantial revenue, would not occur but for the fact that the automobiles are capable of use in distant States like Oklahoma. Respondents observe that the very purpose of an automobile is to travel, and that travel of automobiles sold by petitioners is facilitated by an extensive chain of Volkswagen service centers throughout the country, including some in Oklahoma.^[12] [299] However, financial benefits accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a constitutionally cognizable contact with that State. See Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S., at 94-95. In our view, whatever marginal revenues petitioners may receive by virtue of the fact that their products are capable of use in Oklahoma is far too attenuated a contact to justify that State's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over them.

Because we find that petitioners have no "contacts, ties, or relations" with the State of Oklahoma, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.^[13]

The Court holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars the States from asserting jurisdiction over the defendants in these two cases. In each case the Court so decides because it fails to find the "minimum contacts" that have been required since International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945). Because I believe that the Court reads International Shoe and its progeny too narrowly, and because I believe that the standards enunciated by those cases may already be obsolete as constitutional boundaries, I dissent.

I

The Court's opinions focus tightly on the existence of contacts between the forum and the defendant. In so doing, they accord too little weight to the strength of the forum State's interest in the case and fail to explore whether there [300] would be any actual inconvenience to the defendant. The essential inquiry in locating the constitutional limits on state-court jurisdiction over absent defendants is whether the particular exercise of jurisdiction offends "`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe, supra, at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940). The clear focus in International Shoe was on fairness and reasonableness. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 92 (1978). The Court specifically declined to establish a mechanical test based on the quantum of contacts between a State and the defendant:

"Whether due process is satisfied must depend rather upon the quality and nature of the activity in relation to the fair and orderly administration of the laws which it was the purpose of the due process clause to insure. That clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations." 326 U. S., at 319 (emphasis added).

The existence of contacts, so long as there were some, was merely one way of giving content to the determination of fairness and reasonableness.

Surely International Shoe contemplated that the significance of the contacts necessary to support jurisdiction would diminish if some other consideration helped establish that jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. The interests of the State and other parties in proceeding with the case in a particular forum are such considerations. McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957), for instance, accorded great importance to a State's "manifest interest in providing effective means of redress" for its citizens. See also Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 92; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 208 (1977); Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).

Another consideration is the actual burden a defendant [301] must bear in defending the suit in the forum. McGee, supra. Because lesser burdens reduce the unfairness to the defendant, jurisdiction may be justified despite less significant contacts. The burden, of course, must be of constitutional dimension. Due process limits on jurisdiction do not protect a defendant from all inconvenience of travel, McGee, supra, at 224, and it would not be sensible to make the constitutional rule turn solely on the number of miles the defendant must travel to the courtroom.^[14] Instead, the constitutionally significant "burden" to be analyzed relates to the mobility of the defendant's defense. For instance, if having to travel to a foreign forum would hamper the defense because witnesses or evidence or the defendant himself were immobile, or if there were a disproportionately large number of witnesses or amount of evidence that would have to be transported at the defendant's expense, or if being away from home for the duration of the trial would work some special hardship on the defendant, then the Constitution would require special consideration for the defendant's interests.

That considerations other than contacts between the forum and the defendant are relevant necessarily means that the Constitution does not require that trial be held in the State which has the "best contacts" with the defendant. See Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 228 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). The defendant has no constitutional entitlement to the best forum or, for that matter, to any particular forum. Under even the most restrictive view of International Shoe, several States could have jurisdiction over a particular cause of action. We need only determine whether the forum States in these cases satisfy the constitutional minimum.^[15]

[302] II

In each of these cases, I would find that the forum State has an interest in permitting the litigation to go forward, the litigation is connected to the forum, the defendant is linked to the forum, and the burden of defending is not unreasonable. Accordingly, I would hold that it is neither unfair nor unreasonable to require these defendants to defend in the forum State.

A

In No. 78-952, a number of considerations suggest that Minnesota is an interested and convenient forum. The action was filed by a bona fide resident of the forum.^[16] Consequently, Minnesota's interests are similar to, even if lesser than, the interests of California in McGee, supra, "in providing a forum for its residents and in regulating the activities of insurance companies" doing business in the State.^[17]Post, at 332. Moreover, Minnesota has "attempted to assert [its] particularized interest in trying such cases in its courts by . . . enacting a special jurisdictional statute." Kulko, supra, at 98; McGee, supra, at 221, 224. As in McGee, a resident forced to travel to a distant State to prosecute an action [303] against someone who has injured him could, for lack of funds, be entirely unable to bring the cause of action. The plaintiff's residence in the State makes the State one of a very few convenient fora for a personal injury case (the others usually being the defendant's home State and the State where the accident occurred).^[18]

In addition, the burden on the defendant is slight. As Judge Friendly has recognized, Shaffer emphasizes the importance of identifying the real impact of the lawsuit. O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., 579 F. 2d 194, 200 (CA2 1978) (upholding the constitutionality of jurisdiction in a very similar case under New York's law after Shaffer). Here the real impact is on the defendant's insurer, which is concededly amenable to suit in the forum State. The defendant is carefully protected from financial liability because the action limits the prayer for damages to the insurance policy's liability limit.^[19] The insurer will handle the case for the defendant. The defendant is only a nominal party who need be no more active in the case than the cooperation clause of his policy requires. Because of the ease of airline transportation, he need not lose significantly more time than if the case were at home. Consequently, if the suit went forward [304] in Minnesota, the defendant would bear almost no burden or expense beyond what he would face if the suit were in his home State. The real impact on the named defendant is the same as it is in a direct action against the insurer, which would be constitutionally permissible. Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U. S. 66 (1954); Minichiello v. Rosenberg, 410 F. 2d 106, 109-110 (CA2 1968). The only distinction is the formal, "analytica[l] prerequisite," post, at 331, of making the insured a named party. Surely the mere addition of appellant's name to the complaint does not suffice to create a due process violation.^[20]

Finally, even were the relevant inquiry whether there are sufficient contacts between the forum and the named defendant, I would find that such contacts exist. The insurer's presence in Minnesota is an advantage to the defendant that may well have been a consideration in his selecting the policy he did. An insurer with offices in many States makes it easier for the insured to make claims or conduct other business that may become necessary while traveling. It is simply not true that "State Farm's decision to do business in Minnesota was completely adventitious as far as Rush was concerned." Post, at 328-329. By buying a State Farm policy, the defendant availed himself of the benefits he might derive from having an insurance agent in Minnesota who could, among other things, facilitate a suit for appellant against a Minnesota resident. It seems unreasonable to read the Constitution as permitting one to take advantage of his nationwide insurance network but not to be burdened by it.

In sum, I would hold that appellant is not deprived of due process by being required to submit to trial in Minnesota, first because Minnesota has a sufficient interest in and connection [305] to this litigation and to the real and nominal defendants, and second because the burden on the nominal defendant is sufficiently slight.

B

In No. 78-1078, the interest of the forum State and its connection to the litigation is strong. The automobile accident underlying the litigation occurred in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs were hospitalized in Oklahoma when they brought suit. Essential witnesses and evidence were in Oklahoma. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 208. The State has a legitimate interest in enforcing its laws designed to keep its highway system safe, and the trial can proceed at least as efficiently in Oklahoma as anywhere else.

The petitioners are not unconnected with the forum. Although both sell automobiles within limited sales territories, each sold the automobile which in fact was driven to Oklahoma where it was involved in an accident.^[21] It may be true, as the Court suggests, that each sincerely intended to limit its commercial impact to the limited territory, and that each intended to accept the benefits and protection of the laws only of those States within the territory. But obviously these were unrealistic hopes that cannot be treated as an automatic constitutional shield.^[22]

[306] An automobile simply is not a stationary item or one designed to be used in one place. An automobile is intended to be moved around. Someone in the business of selling large numbers of automobiles can hardly plead ignorance of their mobility or pretend that the automobiles stay put after they are sold. It is not merely that a dealer in automobiles foresees that they will move. Ante, at 295. The dealer actually intends that the purchasers will use the automobiles to travel to distant States where the dealer does not directly "do business." The sale of an automobile does purposefully inject the vehicle into the stream of interstate commerce so that it can travel to distant States. See Kulko, 436 U. S., at 94; Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958).

This case is similar to Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493 (1971). There we indicated, in the course of denying leave to file an original-jurisdiction case, that corporations having no direct contact with Ohio could constitutionally be brought to trial in Ohio because they dumped pollutants into streams outside Ohio's limits which ultimately, through the action of the water, reached Lake Erie and affected Ohio. No corporate acts, only their consequences, occurred in Ohio. The stream of commerce is just as natural a force as a stream of water, and it was equally predictable that the cars petitioners released would reach distant States.^[23]

The Court accepts that a State may exercise jurisdiction over a distributor which "serves" that State "indirectly" by "deliver[ing] its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State." Ante, at 297-298. It is difficult to see why the Constitution should distinguish between a case involving [307] goods which reach a distant State through a chain of distribution and a case involving goods which reach the same State because a consumer, using them as the dealer knew the customer would, took them there.^[24] In each case the seller purposefully injects the goods into the stream of commerce and those goods predictably are used in the forum State.^[25]

Furthermore, an automobile seller derives substantial benefits from States other than its own. A large part of the value of automobiles is the extensive, nationwide network of highways. Significant portions of that network have been constructed by and are maintained by the individual States, including Oklahoma. The States, through their highway programs, contribute in a very direct and important way to the value of petitioners' businesses. Additionally, a network of other related dealerships with their service departments operates throughout the country under the protection of the laws of the various States, including Oklahoma, and enhances the value of petitioners' businesses by facilitating their customers' traveling.

Thus, the Court errs in its conclusion, ante, at 299 (emphasis added), that "petitioners have no `contacts, ties, or relations'" with Oklahoma. There obviously are contacts, and, given Oklahoma's connection to the litigation, the contacts are sufficiently significant to make it fair and reasonable for the petitioners to submit to Oklahoma's jurisdiction.

III

It may be that affirmance of the judgments in these cases would approach the outer limits of International Shoe's jurisdictional [308] principle. But that principle, with its almost exclusive focus on the rights of defendants, may be outdated. As MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL wrote in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 212: "`[T]raditional notions of fair play and substantial justice' can be as readily offended by the perpetuation of ancient forms that are no longer justified as by the adoption of new procedures. . . ."

International Shoe inherited its defendant focus from Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878), and represented the last major step this Court has taken in the long process of liberalizing the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. Though its flexible approach represented a major advance, the structure of our society has changed in many significant ways since International Shoe was decided in 1945. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220, 222 (1957), recognized that "a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents." He explained the trend as follows:

"In part this is attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years. Today many commercial transactions touch two or more States and may involve parties separated by the full continent. With this increasing nationalization of commerce has come a great increase in the amount of business conducted by mail across state lines. At the same time modern transportation and communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity." Id., at 222-223.

As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 292-293, both the nationalization of commerce and the ease of transportation and communication have accelerated in the generation since 1957.^[26] [309] The model of society on which the International Shoe Court based its opinion is no longer accurate. Business people, no matter how local their businesses, cannot assume that goods remain in the business' locality. Customers and goods can be anywhere else in the country usually in a matter of hours and always in a matter of a very few days.

In answering the question whether or not it is fair and reasonable to allow a particular forum to hold a trial binding on a particular defendant, the interests of the forum State and other parties loom large in today's world and surely are entitled to as much weight as are the interests of the defendant. The "orderly administration of the laws" provides a firm basis for according some protection to the interests of plaintiffs and States as well as of defendants.^[27] Certainly, I cannot see how a defendant's right to due process is violated if the defendant suffers no inconvenience. See ante, at 294.

The conclusion I draw is that constitutional concepts of fairness no longer require the extreme concern for defendants that was once necessary. Rather, as I wrote in dissent from Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 220 (emphasis added), minimum [310] contacts must exist "among the parties, the contested transaction, and the forum State."^[28] The contacts between any two of these should not be determinate. "[W]hen a suitor seeks to lodge a suit in a State with a substantial interest in seeing its own law applied to the transaction in question, we could wisely act to minimize conflicts, confusion, and uncertainty by adopting a liberal view of jurisdiction, unless considerations of fairness or efficiency strongly point in the opposite direction."^[29] 433 U. S., at 225-226. Mr. Justice Black, dissenting in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 258-259, expressed similar concerns by suggesting that a State should have jurisdiction over a case growing out of a transaction significantly related to that State "unless litigation there would impose such a heavy and disproportionate burden on a nonresident defendant that it would offend what this Court has referred to as `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"^[30] Assuming [311] that a State gives a nonresident defendant adequate notice and opportunity to defend, I do not think the Due Process Clause is offended merely because the defendant has to board a plane to get to the site of the trial.

The Court's opinion in No. 78-1078 suggests that the defendant ought to be subject to a State's jurisdiction only if he has contacts with the State "such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."^[31]Ante, at 297. There is nothing unreasonable or unfair, however, about recognizing commercial reality. Given the tremendous mobility of goods and people, and the inability of businessmen to control where goods are taken by customers (or retailers), I do not think that the defendant should be in complete control of the geographical stretch of his amenability to suit. Jurisdiction is no longer premised on the notion that nonresident defendants have somehow impliedly consented to suit. People should understand that they are held responsible for the consequences of their actions and that in our society most actions have consequences affecting many States. When an action in fact causes injury in another State, the actor should be prepared to answer for it there unless defending in that State would be unfair for some reason other than that a state boundary must be crossed.^[32]

In effect the Court is allowing defendants to assert the sovereign [312] rights of their home States. The expressed fear is that otherwise all limits on personal jurisdiction would disappear. But the argument's premise is wrong. I would not abolish limits on jurisdiction or strip state boundaries of all significance, see Hanson, supra, at 260 (Black, J., dissenting); I would still require the plaintiff to demonstrate sufficient contacts among the parties, the forum, and the litigation to make the forum a reasonable State in which to hold the trial.^[33]

I would also, however, strip the defendant of an unjustified veto power over certain very appropriate fora—a power the defendant justifiably enjoyed long ago when communication and travel over long distances were slow and unpredictable and when notions of state sovereignty were impractical and exaggerated. But I repeat that that is not today's world. If a plaintiff can show that his chosen forum State has a sufficient interest in the litigation (or sufficient contacts with the defendant), then the defendant who cannot show some real injury to a constitutionally protected interest, see O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., 579 F. 2d, at 201, should have no constitutional excuse not to appear.^[34]

The plaintiffs in each of these cases brought suit in a forum with which they had significant contacts and which had significant contacts with the litigation. I am not convinced that the defendants would suffer any "heavy and disproportionate burden" in defending the suits. Accordingly, I would hold [313] that the Constitution should not shield the defendants from appearing and defending in the plaintiffs' chosen fora.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, dissenting.

For over 30 years the standard by which to measure the constitutionally permissible reach of state-court jurisdiction has been well established:

"[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940).

The corollary, that the Due Process Clause forbids the assertion of jurisdiction over a defendant "with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations," 326 U. S., at 319, is equally clear. The concepts of fairness and substantial justice as applied to an evaluation of "the quality and nature of the [defendant's] activity," ibid., are not readily susceptible of further definition, however, and it is not surprising that the constitutional standard is easier to state than to apply.

This is a difficult case, and reasonable minds may differ as to whether respondents have alleged a sufficient "relationship among the defendant[s], the forum, and the litigation," Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 204 (1977), to satisfy the requirements of International Shoe. I am concerned, however, that the majority has reached its result by taking an unnecessarily narrow view of petitioners' forum-related conduct. The majority asserts that "respondents seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom: the fortuitous circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York [314] residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma." Ante, at 295. If that were the case, I would readily agree that the minimum contacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction are not present. But the basis for the assertion of jurisdiction is not the happenstance that an individual over whom petitioners had no control made a unilateral decision to take a chattel with him to a distant State. Rather, jurisdiction is premised on the deliberate and purposeful actions of the defendants themselves in choosing to become part of a nationwide, indeed a global, network for marketing and servicing automobiles.

Petitioners are sellers of a product whose utility derives from its mobility. The unique importance of the automobile in today's society, which is discussed in MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN'S dissenting opinion, post, at 318, needs no further elaboration. Petitioners know that their customers buy cars not only to make short trips, but also to travel long distances. In fact, the nationwide service network with which they are affiliated was designed to facilitate and encourage such travel. Seaway would be unlikely to sell many cars if authorized service were available only in Massena, N. Y. Moreover, local dealers normally derive a substantial portion of their revenues from their service operations and thereby obtain a further economic benefit from the opportunity to service cars which were sold in other States. It is apparent that petitioners have not attempted to minimize the chance that their activities will have effects in other States; on the contrary, they have chosen to do business in a way that increases that chance, because it is to their economic advantage to do so.

To be sure, petitioners could not know in advance that this particular automobile would be driven to Oklahoma. They must have anticipated, however, that a substantial portion of the cars they sold would travel out of New York. Seaway, a local dealer in the second most populous State, and World-Wide, [315] one of only seven regional Audi distributors in the entire country, see Brief for Respondents 2, would scarcely have been surprised to learn that a car sold by them had been driven in Oklahoma on Interstate 44, a heavily traveled transcontinental highway. In the case of the distributor, in particular, the probability that some of the cars it sells will be driven in every one of the contiguous States must amount to a virtual certainty. This knowledge should alert a reasonable businessman to the likelihood that a defect in the product might manifest itself in the forum State—not because of some unpredictable, aberrant, unilateral action by a single buyer, but in the normal course of the operation of the vehicles for their intended purpose.

It is misleading for the majority to characterize the argument in favor of jurisdiction as one of "`foreseeability' alone." Ante, at 295. As economic entities petitioners reach out from New York, knowingly causing effects in other States and receiving economic advantage both from the ability to cause such effects themselves and from the activities of dealers and distributors in other States. While they did not receive revenue from making direct sales in Oklahoma, they intentionally became part of an interstate economic network, which included dealerships in Oklahoma, for pecuniary gain. In light of this purposeful conduct I do not believe it can be said that petitioners "had no reason to expect to be haled before a[n Oklahoma] court." Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 216; see ante, at 297, and Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 97-98 (1978).

The majority apparently acknowledges that if a product is purchased in the forum State by a consumer, that State may assert jurisdiction over everyone in the chain of distribution. See ante, at 297-298. With this I agree. But I cannot agree that jurisdiction is necessarily lacking if the product enters the State not through the channels of distribution but in the course of its intended use by the consumer. We have recognized [316] the role played by the automobile in the expansion of our notions of personal jurisdiction. See Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 204; Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927). Unlike most other chattels, which may find their way into States far from where they were purchased because their owner takes them there, the intended use of the automobile is precisely as a means of traveling from one place to another. In such a case, it is highly artificial to restrict the concept of the "stream of commerce" to the chain of distribution from the manufacturer to the ultimate consumer.

I sympathize with the majority's concern that persons ought to be able to structure their conduct so as not to be subject to suit in distant forums. But that may not always be possible. Some activities by their very nature may foreclose the option of conducting them in such a way as to avoid subjecting oneself to jurisdiction in multiple forums. This is by no means to say that all sellers of automobiles should be subject to suit everywhere; but a distributor of automobiles to a multistate market and a local automobile dealer who makes himself part of a nationwide network of dealerships can fairly expect that the cars they sell may cause injury in distant States and that they may be called on to defend a resulting lawsuit there.

In light of the quality and nature of petitioners' activity, the majority's reliance on Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, is misplaced. Kulko involved the assertion of state-court jurisdiction over a nonresident individual in connection with an action to modify his child custody rights and support obligations. His only contact with the forum State was that he gave his minor child permission to live there with her mother. In holding that the exercise of jurisdiction violated the Due Process Clause, we emphasized that the cause of action as well as the defendant's actions in relation to the forum State arose "not from the defendant's commercial transactions in interstate commerce, but rather from his personal, [317] domestic relations," 436 U. S., at 97 (emphasis supplied), contrasting Kulko's actions with those of the insurance company in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220 (1957), which were undertaken for commercial benefit.^[35]

Manifestly, the "quality and nature" of commercial activity is different, for purposes of the International Shoe test, from actions from which a defendant obtains no economic advantage. Commercial activity is more likely to cause effects in a larger sphere, and the actor derives an economic benefit from the activity that makes it fair to require him to answer for his conduct where its effects are felt. The profits may be used to pay the costs of suit, and knowing that the activity is likely to have effects in other States the defendant can readily insure against the costs of those effects, thereby sparing himself much of the inconvenience of defending in a distant forum.

Of course, the Constitution forbids the exercise of jurisdiction if the defendant had no judicially cognizable contacts with the forum. But as the majority acknowledges, if such contacts are present the jurisdictional inquiry requires a balancing of various interests and policies. See ante, at 292; Rush v. Savchuk, post, at 332. I believe such contacts are to be found here and that, considering all of the interests and policies at stake, requiring petitioners to defend this action in Oklahoma is not beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Accordingly, I dissent.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.

I confess that I am somewhat puzzled why the plaintiffs in this litigation are so insistent that the regional distributor and the retail dealer, the petitioners here, who handled the ill-fated Audi automobile involved in this litigation, be named defendants. It would appear that the manufacturer and the [318] importer, whose subjectability to Oklahoma jurisdiction is not challenged before this Court, ought not to be judgment-proof. It may, of course, ultimately amount to a contest between insurance companies that, once begun, is not easily brought to a termination. Having made this much of an observation, I pursue it no further.

For me, a critical factor in the disposition of the litigation is the nature of the instrumentality under consideration. It has been said that we are a nation on wheels. What we are concerned with here is the automobile and its peripatetic character. One need only examine our national network of interstate highways, or make an appearance on one of them, or observe the variety of license plates present not only on those highways but in any metropolitan area, to realize that any automobile is likely to wander far from its place of licensure or from its place of distribution and retail sale. Miles per gallon on the highway (as well as in the city) and mileage per thankful are familiar allegations in manufacturers' advertisements today. To expect that any new automobile will remain in the vicinity of its retail sale—like the 1914 electric car driven by the proverbial "little old lady"—is to blink at reality. The automobile is intended for distance as well as for transportation within a limited area.

It therefore seems to me not unreasonable—and certainly not unconstitutional and beyond the reach of the principles laid down in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), and its progeny—to uphold Oklahoma jurisdiction over this New York distributor and this New York dealer when the accident happened in Oklahoma. I see nothing more unfair for them than for the manufacturer and the importer. All are in the business of providing vehicles that spread out over the highways of our several States. It is not too much to anticipate at the time of distribution and at the time of retail sale that this Audi would be in Oklahoma. Moreover, in assessing "minimum contacts," foreseeable use in another State seems to me to be little different from foreseeable resale [319] in another State. Yet the Court declares this distinction determinate. Ante, at 297-299.

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN points out in his dissent, ante, at 307, that an automobile dealer derives substantial benefits from States other than its own. The same is true of the regional distributor. Oklahoma does its best to provide safe roads. Its police investigate accidents. It regulates driving within the State. It provides aid to the victim and thereby, it is hoped, lessens damages. Accident reports are prepared and made available. All this contributes to and enhances the business of those engaged professionally in the distribution and sale of automobiles. All this also may benefit defendants in the very lawsuits over which the State asserts jurisdiction.

My position need not now take me beyond the automobile and the professional who does business by way of distributing and retailing automobiles. Cases concerning other instrumentalities will be dealt with as they arise and in their own contexts.

I would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Because the Court reverses that judgment, it will now be about parsing every variant in the myriad of motor vehicle fact situations that present themselves. Some will justify jurisdiction and others will not. All will depend on the "contact" that the Court sees fit to perceive in the individual case.

[1] The driver of the other automobile does not figure in the present litigation.

[2] Kay Robinson sued on her own behalf. The two children sued through Harry Robinson as their father and next friend.

[3] Volkswagen also entered a special appearance in the District Court, but unlike World-Wide and Seaway did not seek review in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and is not a petitioner here. Both Volkswagen and Audi remain as defendants in the litigation pending before the District Court in Oklahoma.

[4] The papers filed by the petitioners also claimed that the District Court lacked "venue of the subject matter," App. 9, or "venue over the subject matter," id., at 11.

[5] The District Court's rulings are unreported, and appear at App. 13 and 20.

[6] Five judges joined in the opinion. Two concurred in the result, without opinion, and one concurred in part and dissented in part, also without opinion.

[7] This subsection provides:

"A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or claim for relief arising from the person's . . . causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state. . . ."

The State Supreme Court rejected jurisdiction based on § 1701.03 (a) (3), which authorizes jurisdiction over any person "causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission in this state." Something in addition to the infliction of tortious injury was required.

[8] Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 555 P. 2d 48 (Okla. 1976); Carmack v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., 536 P. 2d 897 (Okla. 1975); Hines v. Clendenning, 465 P. 2d 460 (Okla. 1970).

[9] Cf. Tilley v. Keller Truck & Implement Corp., 200 Kan. 641, 438 P. 2d 128 (1968); Granite States Volkswagen, Inc. v. District Court, 177 Colo. 42, 492 P. 2d 624 (1972); Pellegrini v. Sachs & Sons, 522 P. 2d 704 (Utah 1974); Oliver v. American Motors Corp., 70 Wash. 2d 875, 425 P. 2d 647 (1967).

[10] Respondents argue, as a threshold matter, that petitioners waived any objections to personal jurisdiction by (1) joining with their special appearances a challenge to the District Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, see n. 4, supra, and (2) taking depositions on the merits of the case in Oklahoma. The trial court, however, characterized the appearances as "special," and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, rather than finding jurisdiction waived, reached and decided the statutory and constitutional questions. Cf. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 91, n. 5 (1978).

[11] Respondents' counsel, at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-22, 29, sought to limit the reach of the foreseeability standard by suggesting that there is something unique about automobiles. It is true that automobiles are uniquely mobile, see Tyson v. Whitaker & Son, Inc., 407 A. 2d 1, 6, and n. 11 (Me. 1979) (McKusick, C. J.), that they did play a crucial role in the expansion of personal jurisdiction through the fiction of implied consent, e. g., Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 (1927), and that some of the cases have treated the automobile as a "dangerous instrumentality." But today, under the regime of International Shoe, we see no difference for jurisdictional purposes between an automobile and any other chattel. The "dangerous instrumentality" concept apparently was never used to support personal jurisdiction; and to the extent it has relevance today it bears not on jurisdiction but on the possible desirability of imposing substantive principles of tort law such as strict liability.

[12] As we have noted, petitioners earn no direct revenues from these service centers. See supra, at 289.

[13] [This opinion applies also to No. 78-952, Rush et al. v. Savchuk, post, p. 320.]

[14] In fact, a courtroom just across the state line from a defendant may often be far more convenient for the defendant than a courtroom in a distant corner of his own State.

[15] The States themselves, of course, remain free to choose whether to extend their jurisdiction to embrace all defendants over whom the Constitution would permit exercise of jurisdiction.

[16] The plaintiff asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 571.41, subd. 2 (1978), which allows garnishment of an insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify its insured. See post, at 322-323, n. 3, and accompanying text. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as allowing suit only to the insurance policy's liability limit. The court has held that the statute embodies the rule of Seider v. Roth, 17 N. Y. 2d 111, 216 N. E. 2d 312 (1966).

[17] To say that these considerations are relevant is a far cry from saying that they are "substituted for . . . contacts with the defendant and the cause of action." Post, at 332. The forum's interest in the litigation is an independent point of inquiry even under traditional readings of International Shoe's progeny. If there is a shift in focus, it is not away from "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Post, at 332 (emphasis added). Instead it is a shift within the same accepted relationship from the connections between the defendant and the forum to those between the forum and the litigation.

[18] In every International Shoe inquiry, the defendant, necessarily, is outside the forum State. Thus it is inevitable that either the defendant or the plaintiff will be inconvenienced. The problem existing at the time of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878), that a resident plaintiff could obtain a binding judgment against an unsuspecting, distant defendant, has virtually disappeared in this age of instant communication and virtually instant travel.

[19] It is true that the insurance contract is not the subject of the litigation. Post, at 329. But one of the undisputed clauses of the insurance policy is that the insurer will defend this action and pay any damages assessed, up to the policy limit. The very purpose of the contract is to relieve the insured from having to defend himself, and under the state statute there could be no suit absent the insurance contract. Thus, in a real sense, the insurance contract is the source of the suit. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 207 (1977).

[20] Were the defendant a real party subject to actual liability or were there significant noneconomic consequences such as those suggested by the Court's note 20, post, at 331, a more substantial connection with the forum State might well be constitutionally required.

[21] On the basis of this fact the state court inferred that the petitioners derived substantial revenue from goods used in Oklahoma. The inference is not without support. Certainly, were use of goods accepted as a relevant contact, a plaintiff would not need to have an exact count of the number of petitioners' cars that are used in Oklahoma.

[22] Moreover, imposing liability in this case would not so undermine certainty as to destroy an automobile dealer's ability to do business. According jurisdiction does not expand liability except in the marginal case where a plaintiff cannot afford to bring an action except in the plaintiff's own State. In addition, these petitioners are represented by insurance companies. They not only could, but did, purchase insurance to protect them should they stand trial and lose the case. The costs of the insurance no doubt are passed on to customers.

[23] One might argue that it was more predictable that the pollutants would reach Ohio than that one of petitioners' cars would reach Oklahoma. The Court's analysis, however, excludes jurisdiction in a contiguous State such as Pennsylvania as surely as in more distant States such as Oklahoma.

[24] For example, I cannot understand the constitutional distinction between selling an item in New Jersey and selling an item in New York expecting it to be used in New Jersey.

[25] The manufacturer in the case cited by the Court, Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N. E. 2d 761 (1961), had no more control over which States its goods would reach than did the petitioners in this case.

[26] Statistics help illustrate the amazing expansion in mobility since International Shoe. The number of revenue passenger-miles flown on domestic and international flights increased by nearly three orders of magnitude between 1945 (450 million) and 1976 (179 billion). U. S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States, pt. 2, p. 770 (1975); U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 670 (1978). Automobile vehicle-miles (including passenger cars, buses, and trucks) driven in the United States increased by a relatively modest 500% during the same period, growing from 250 billion in 1945 to 1,409 billion in 1976. Historical Statistics, supra, at 718; Statistical Abstract, supra, at 647.

[27] The Court has recognized that there are cases where the interests of justice can turn the focus of the jurisdictional inquiry away from the contracts between a defendant and the forum State. For instance, the Court indicated that the requirement of contacts may be greatly relaxed (if indeed any personal contacts would be required) where a plaintiff is suing a nonresident defendant to enforce a judgment procured in another State. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 210-211, nn. 36, 37.

[28] In some cases, the inquiry will resemble the inquiry commonly undertaken in determining which State's law to apply. That it is fair to apply a State's law to a nonresident defendant is clearly relevant in determining whether it is fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction in that State. Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, at 225 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 258 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting). See n. 19, infra.

[29] Such a standard need be no more uncertain than the Court's test "in which few answers will be written `in black and white. The greys are dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable.' Estin v. Estin, 334 U. S. 541, 545 (1948)." Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 92 (1978).

[30] This strong emphasis on the State's interest is nothing new. This Court, permitting the forum to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident claimants to a trust largely on the basis of the forum's interest in closing the trust, stated:

"[T]he interest of each state in providing means to close trusts that exist by the grace of its laws and are administered under the supervision of its courts is so insistent and rooted in custom as to establish beyond doubt the right of its courts to determine the interests of all claimants, resident or nonresident, provided its procedure accords full opportunity to appear and be heard." Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).

[31] The Court suggests that this is the critical foreseeability rather than the likelihood that the product will go to the forum State. But the reasoning begs the question. A defendant cannot know if his actions will subject him to jurisdiction in another State until we have declared what the law of jurisdiction is.

[32] One consideration that might create some unfairness would be if the choice of forum also imposed on the defendant an unfavorable substantive law which the defendant could justly have assumed would not apply. See n. 15, supra.

[33] For instance, in No. 78-952, if the plaintiff were not a bona fide resident of Minnesota when the suit was filed or if the defendant were subject to financial liability, I might well reach a different result. In No. 78-1078, I might reach a different result if the accident had not occurred in Oklahoma.

[34] Frequently, of course, the defendant will be able to influence the choice of forum through traditional doctrines, such as venue or forum non conveniens, permitting the transfer of litigation. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 228, n. 8 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting).

[35] Similarly, I believe the Court in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235 (1958), was influenced by the fact that trust administration has traditionally been considered a peculiarly local activity.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

[105] Graydon S. Staring argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Richard D. Hoffman.

Ronald R. Haven argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.^[1]

George E. Murphy filed a brief for the California Manufacturers Association as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A and III, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, and JUSTICE SCALIA join.

This case presents the question whether the mere awareness on the part of a foreign defendant that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum State in the stream of commerce constitutes "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State such that the exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S. 457, 463 (1940).

I

On September 23, 1978, on Interstate Highway 80 in Solano County, California, Gary Zurcher lost control of his Honda motorcycle and collided with a tractor. Zurcher was severely injured, and his passenger and wife, Ruth Ann Moreno, was killed. In September 1979, Zurcher filed a product liability action in the Superior Court of the State of [106] California in and for the County of Solano. Zurcher alleged that the 1978 accident was caused by a sudden loss of air and an explosion in the rear tire of the motorcycle, and alleged that the motorcycle tire, tube, and sealant were defective. Zurcher's complaint named, inter alia, Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. (Cheng Shin), the Taiwanese manufacturer of the tube. Cheng Shin in turn filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from its codefendants and from petitioner, Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (Asahi), the manufacturer of the tube's valve assembly. Zurcher's claims against Cheng Shin and the other defendants were eventually settled and dismissed, leaving only Cheng Shin's indemnity action against Asahi.

California's long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 410.10 (West 1973). Asahi moved to quash Cheng Shin's service of summons, arguing the State could not exert jurisdiction over it consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In relation to the motion, the following information was submitted by Asahi and Cheng Shin. Asahi is a Japanese corporation. It manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells the assemblies to Cheng Shin, and to several other tire manufacturers, for use as components in finished tire tubes. Asahi's sales to Cheng Shin took place in Taiwan. The shipments from Asahi to Cheng Shin were sent from Japan to Taiwan. Cheng Shin bought and incorporated into its tire tubes 150,000 Asahi valve assemblies in 1978; 500,000 in 1979; 500,000 in 1980; 100,000 in 1981; and 100,000 in 1982. Sales to Cheng Shin accounted for 1.24 percent of Asahi's income in 1981 and 0.44 percent in 1982. Cheng Shin alleged that approximately 20 percent of its sales in the United States are in California. Cheng Shin purchases valve assemblies from other suppliers as well, and sells finished tubes throughout the world.

[107] In 1983 an attorney for Cheng Shin conducted an informal examination of the valve stems of the tire tubes sold in one cycle store in Solano County. The attorney declared that of the approximately 115 tire tubes in the store, 97 were purportedly manufactured in Japan or Taiwan, and of those 97, 21 valve stems were marked with the circled letter "A", apparently Asahi's trademark. Of the 21 Asahi valve stems, 12 were incorporated into Cheng Shin tire tubes. The store contained 41 other Cheng Shin tubes that incorporated the valve assemblies of other manufacturers. Declaration of Kenneth B. Shepard in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena, App. to Brief for Respondent 5-6. An affidavit of a manager of Cheng Shin whose duties included the purchasing of component parts stated: " `In discussions with Asahi regarding the purchase of valve stem assemblies the fact that my Company sells tubes throughout the world and specifically the United States has been discussed. I am informed and believe that Asahi was fully aware that valve stem assemblies sold to my Company and to others would end up throughout the United States and in California.' " 39 Cal. 3d 35, 48, n. 4, 702 P. 2d 543, 549-550, n. 4 (1985). An affidavit of the president of Asahi, on the other hand, declared that Asahi " `has never contemplated that its limited sales of tire valves to Cheng Shin in Taiwan would subject it to lawsuits in California.' " Ibid. The record does not include any contract between Cheng Shin and Asahi. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24.

Primarily on the basis of the above information, the Superior Court denied the motion to quash summons, stating: "Asahi obviously does business on an international scale. It is not unreasonable that they defend claims of defect in their product on an international scale." Order Denying Motion to Quash Summons, Zurcher v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co., No. 76180 (Super. Ct., Solano County, Cal., Apr. 20, 1983).

The Court of Appeal of the State of California issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Superior Court to quash service of summons. The court concluded that "it [108] would be unreasonable to require Asahi to respond in California solely on the basis of ultimately realized foreseeability that the product into which its component was embodied would be sold all over the world including California." App. to Pet. for Cert. B5-B6.

The Supreme Court of the State of California reversed and discharged the writ issued by the Court of Appeal. 39 Cal. 3d 35, 702 P. 2d 543 (1985). The court observed: "Asahi has no offices, property or agents in California. It solicits no business in California and has made no direct sales [in California]." Id., at 48, 702 P. 2d, at 549. Moreover, "Asahi did not design or control the system of distribution that carried its valve assemblies into California." Id., at 49, 702 P. 2d, at 549. Nevertheless, the court found the exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi to be consistent with the Due Process Clause. It concluded that Asahi knew that some of the valve assemblies sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into tire tubes sold in California, and that Asahi benefited indirectly from the sale in California of products incorporating its components. The court considered Asahi's intentional act of placing its components into the stream of commerce — that is, by delivering the components to Cheng Shin in Taiwan — coupled with Asahi's awareness that some of the components would eventually find their way into California, sufficient to form the basis for state court jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.

We granted certiorari, 475 U. S. 1044 (1986), and now reverse.

II

A

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. "[T]he constitutional touchstone" of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process "remains whether the defendant purposefully established `minimum contacts' in the [109] forum State." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 474 (1985), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 316. Most recently we have reaffirmed the oft-quoted reasoning of Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958), that minimum contacts must have a basis in "some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Burger King, 471 U. S., at 475. "Jurisdiction is proper . . . where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a `substantial connection' with the forum State." Ibid., quoting McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S. 220, 223 (1957) (emphasis in original).

Applying the principle that minimum contacts must be based on an act of the defendant, the Court in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286 (1980), rejected the assertion that a consumer's unilateral act of bringing the defendant's product into the forum State was a sufficient constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant. It had been argued in World-Wide Volkswagen that because an automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor sold a product mobile by design and purpose, they could foresee being haled into court in the distant States into which their customers might drive. The Court rejected this concept of foreseeability as an insufficient basis for jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. Id., at 295-296. The Court disclaimed, however, the idea that "foreseeability is wholly irrelevant" to personal jurisdiction, concluding that "[t]he forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State." Id., at 297-298 (citation omitted). The Court reasoned:

[110] "When a corporation `purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,' Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. [235,] 253 [(1958)], it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State. Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor . . . is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owners or to others." Id., at 297.

In World-Wide Volkswagen itself, the state court sought to base jurisdiction not on any act of the defendant, but on the foreseeable unilateral actions of the consumer. Since World-Wide Volkswagen, lower courts have been confronted with cases in which the defendant acted by placing a product in the stream of commerce, and the stream eventually swept defendant's product into the forum State, but the defendant did nothing else to purposefully avail itself of the market in the forum State. Some courts have understood the Due Process Clause, as interpreted in World-Wide Volkswagen, to allow an exercise of personal jurisdiction to be based on no more than the defendant's act of placing the product in the stream of commerce. Other courts have understood the Due Process Clause and the above-quoted language in World-Wide Volkswagen to require the action of the defendant to be more purposefully directed at the forum State than the mere act of placing a product in the stream of commerce.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court of California in the present case illustrates the former interpretation of World-Wide Volkswagen. The Supreme Court of California held that, because the stream of commerce eventually brought [111] some valves Asahi sold Cheng Shin into California, Asahi's awareness that its valves would be sold in California was sufficient to permit California to exercise jurisdiction over Asahi consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of California's position was consistent with those courts that have held that mere foreseeability or awareness was a constitutionally sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction if the defendant's product made its way into the forum State while still in the stream of commerce. See Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Technology Corp., 744 F. 2d 1081 (CA5 1984); Hedrick v. Daiko Shoji Co., 715 F. 2d 1355 (CA9 1983).

Other courts, however, have understood the Due Process Clause to require something more than that the defendant was aware of its product's entry into the forum State through the stream of commerce in order for the State to exert jurisdiction over the defendant. In the present case, for example, the State Court of Appeal did not read the Due Process Clause, as interpreted by World-Wide Volkswagen, to allow "mere foreseeability that the product will enter the forum state [to] be enough by itself to establish jurisdiction over the distributor and retailer." App. to Pet. for Cert. B5. In Humble v. Toyota Motor Co., 727 F. 2d 709 (CA8 1984), an injured car passenger brought suit against Arakawa Auto Body Company, a Japanese corporation that manufactured car seats for Toyota. Arakawa did no business in the United States; it had no office, affiliate, subsidiary, or agent in the United States; it manufactured its component parts outside the United States and delivered them to Toyota Motor Company in Japan. The Court of Appeals, adopting the reasoning of the District Court in that case, noted that although it "does not doubt that Arakawa could have foreseen that its product would find its way into the United States," it would be "manifestly unjust" to require Arakawa to defend itself in the United States. Id., at 710-711, quoting 578 F. Supp. 530, 533 (ND Iowa 1982). See also Hutson v. Fehr Bros., [112] Inc., 584 F. 2d 833 (CA8 1978); see generally Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer, 762 F. 2d 290, 299 (CA3 1985) (collecting "stream of commerce" cases in which the "manufacturers involved had made deliberate decisions to market their products in the forum state").

We now find this latter position to be consonant with the requirements of due process. The "substantial connection," Burger King, 471 U. S., at 475; McGee, 355 U. S., at 223, between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. Burger King, supra, at 476; Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S. 770, 774 (1984). The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. Additional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State. But a defendant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State.

Assuming, arguendo, that respondents have established Asahi's awareness that some of the valves sold to Cheng Shin would be incorporated into tire tubes sold in California, respondents have not demonstrated any action by Asahi to purposefully avail itself of the California market. Asahi does not do business in California. It has no office, agents, employees, or property in California. It does not advertise or otherwise solicit business in California. It did not create, control, or employ the distribution system that brought its valves to California. Cf. Hicks v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, [113] 452 F. Supp. 130 (MD Pa. 1978). There is no evidence that Asahi designed its product in anticipation of sales in California. Cf. Rockwell International Corp. v. Costruzioni Aeronautiche Giovanni Agusta, 553 F. Supp. 328 (ED Pa. 1982). On the basis of these facts, the exertion of personal jurisdiction over Asahi by the Superior Court of California^[2] exceeds the limits of due process.

B

The strictures of the Due Process Clause forbid a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Asahi under circumstances that would offend " `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U. S., at 463.

We have previously explained that the determination of the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction in each case will depend on an evaluation of several factors. A court must consider the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief. It must also weigh in its determination "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U. S., at 292 (citations omitted).

[114] A consideration of these factors in the present case clearly reveals the unreasonableness of the assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi, even apart from the question of the placement of goods in the stream of commerce.

Certainly the burden on the defendant in this case is severe. Asahi has been commanded by the Supreme Court of California not only to traverse the distance between Asahi's headquarters in Japan and the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Solano, but also to submit its dispute with Cheng Shin to a foreign nation's judicial system. The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders.

When minimum contacts have been established, often the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in the exercise of jurisdiction will justify even the serious burdens placed on the alien defendant. In the present case, however, the interests of the plaintiff and the forum in California's assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi are slight. All that remains is a claim for indemnification asserted by Cheng Shin, a Tawainese corporation, against Asahi. The transaction on which the indemnification claim is based took place in Taiwan; Asahi's components were shipped from Japan to Taiwan. Cheng Shin has not demonstrated that it is more convenient for it to litigate its indemnification claim against Asahi in California rather than in Taiwan or Japan.

Because the plaintiff is not a California resident, California's legitimate interests in the dispute have considerably diminished. The Supreme Court of California argued that the State had an interest in "protecting its consumers by ensuring that foreign manufacturers comply with the state's safety standards." 39 Cal. 3d, at 49, 702 P. 2d, at 550. The State Supreme Court's definition of California's interest, however, was overly broad. The dispute between Cheng Shin and Asahi is primarily about indemnification rather than safety [115] standards. Moreover, it is not at all clear at this point that California law should govern the question whether a Japanese corporation should indemnify a Taiwanese corporation on the basis of a sale made in Taiwan and a shipment of goods from Japan to Taiwan. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797, 821-822 (1985); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U. S. 302, 312-313 (1981). The possibility of being haled into a California court as a result of an accident involving Asahi's components undoubtedly creates an additional deterrent to the manufacture of unsafe components; however, similar pressures will be placed on Asahi by the purchasers of its components as long as those who use Asahi components in their final products, and sell those products in California, are subject to the application of California tort law.

World-Wide Volkswagen also admonished courts to take into consideration the interests of the "several States," in addition to the forum State, in the efficient judicial resolution of the dispute and the advancement of substantive policies. In the present case, this advice calls for a court to consider the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected by the assertion of jurisdiction by the California court. The procedural and substantive interests of other nations in a state court's assertion of jurisdiction over an alien defendant will differ from case to case. In every case, however, those interests, as well as the Federal Government's interest in its foreign relations policies, will be best served by a careful inquiry into the reasonableness of the assertion of jurisdiction in the particular case, and an unwillingness to find the serious burdens on an alien defendant outweighed by minimal interests on the part of the plaintiff or the forum State. "Great care and reserve should be exercised when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field." United States v. First National City Bank, 379 U. S. 378, 404 (1965) (Harlan, J., dissenting). See Born, Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases, to be published in 17 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (1987).

[116] Considering the international context, the heavy burden on the alien defendant, and the slight interests of the plaintiff and the forum State, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a California court over Asahi in this instance would be unreasonable and unfair.

III

Because the facts of this case do not establish minimum contacts such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial justice, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I do not agree with the interpretation in Part II-A of the stream-of-commerce theory, nor with the conclusion that Asahi did not "purposely avail itself of the California market." Ante, at 112. I do agree, however, with the Court's conclusion in Part II-B that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would not comport with "fair play and substantial justice," International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320 (1945). This is one of those rare cases in which "minimum requirements inherent in the concept of `fair play and substantial justice' . . . defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even [though] the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 477-478 (1985). I therefore join Parts I and II-B of the Court's opinion, and write separately to explain my disagreement with Part II-A.

Part II-A states that "a defendant's awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward [117] the forum State." Ante, at 112. Under this view, a plaintiff would be required to show "[a]dditional conduct" directed toward the forum before finding the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant to be consistent with the Due Process Clause. Ibid. I see no need for such a showing, however. The stream of commerce refers not to unpredictable currents or eddies, but to the regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale. As long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise. Nor will the litigation present a burden for which there is no corresponding benefit. A defendant who has placed goods in the stream of commerce benefits economically from the retail sale of the final product in the forum State, and indirectly benefits from the State's laws that regulate and facilitate commercial activity. These benefits accrue regardless of whether that participant directly conducts business in the forum State, or engages in additional conduct directed toward that State. Accordingly, most courts and commentators have found that jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce is consistent with the Due Process Clause, and have not required a showing of additional conduct.^[3]

[118] The endorsement in Part II-A of what appears to be the minority view among Federal Courts of Appeals^[4] represents a marked retreat from the analysis in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286 (1980). In that case, "respondents [sought] to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom: the fortuitous circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing through Oklahoma." Id., at 295. The Court held that the possibility of an accident in Oklahoma, while to some extent foreseeable in light of the inherent mobility of the automobile, was not enough to establish [119] minimum contacts between the forum State and the retailer or distributor. Id., at 295-296. The Court then carefully explained:

"[T]his is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum State. Rather, it is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into Court there." Id., at 297.

The Court reasoned that when a corporation may reasonably anticipate litigation in a particular forum, it cannot claim that such litigation is unjust or unfair, because it "can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to consumers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State." Ibid.

To illustrate the point, the Court contrasted the foreseeability of litigation in a State to which a consumer fortuitously transports a defendant's product (insufficient contacts) with the foreseeability of litigation in a State where the defendant's product was regularly sold (sufficient contacts). The Court stated:

"Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others. The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased [120] by consumers in the forum State." Id., at 297-298 (emphasis added).

The Court concluded its illustration by referring to Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill. 2d 432, 176 N. E. 2d 761 (1961), a well-known stream-of-commerce case in which the Illinois Supreme Court applied the theory to assert jurisdiction over a component-parts manufacturer that sold no components directly in Illinois, but did sell them to a manufacturer who incorporated them into a final product that was sold in Illinois. 444 U. S., at 297-298.

The Court in World-Wide Volkswagen thus took great care to distinguish "between a case involving goods which reach a distant State through a chain of distribution and a case involving goods which reach the same State because a consumer. . . took them there." Id., at 306-307 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting).^[5] The California Supreme Court took note of this distinction, and correctly concluded that our holding in World-Wide Volkswagen preserved the stream-of-commerce theory. See App. to Pet. for Cert. C-9, and n. 3, C-13 — C-15; cf. Comment, Federalism, Due Process, and Minimum Contacts: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 1341, 1359-1361, and nn. 140-146 (1980).

[121] In this case, the facts found by the California Supreme Court support its finding of minimum contacts. The court found that "[a]lthough Asahi did not design or control the system of distribution that carried its valve assemblies into California, Asahi was aware of the distribution system's operation, and it knew that it would benefit economically from the sale in California of products incorporating its components." App. to Pet. for Cert. C-11.^[6] Accordingly, I cannot join the determination in Part II-A that Asahi's regular and extensive sales of component parts to a manufacturer it knew was making regular sales of the final product in California is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with California.

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of California should be reversed for the reasons stated in Part II-B of the Court's opinion. While I join Parts I and II-B, I do not join Part II-A for two reasons. First, it is not necessary to the Court's decision. An examination of minimum contacts is not always necessary to determine whether a state court's assertion of personal jurisdiction is constitutional. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U. S. 462, 476-478 (1985). Part II-B establishes, after considering the factors set forth in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 292 (1980), that California's exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would be "unreasonable and unfair." Ante, at 116. This finding alone requires reversal; this case fits within the rule that "minimum requirements inherent in the concept of `fair play and substantial justice' may defeat [122] the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities." Burger King, 471 U. S., at 477-478 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320 (1945)). Accordingly, I see no reason in this case for the plurality to articulate "purposeful direction" or any other test as the nexus between an act of a defendant and the forum State that is necessary to establish minimum contacts.

Second, even assuming that the test ought to be formulated here, Part II-A misapplies it to the facts of this case. The plurality seems to assume that an unwavering line can be drawn between "mere awareness" that a component will find its way into the forum State and "purposeful availment" of the forum's market. Ante, at 112. Over the course of its dealings with Cheng Shin, Asahi has arguably engaged in a higher quantum of conduct than "[t]he placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more . . . ." Ibid. Whether or not this conduct rises to the level of purposeful availment requires a constitutional determination that is affected by the volume, the value, and the hazardous character of the components. In most circumstances I would be inclined to conclude that a regular course of dealing that results in deliveries of over 100,000 units annually over a period of several years would constitute "purposeful availment" even though the item delivered to the forum State was a standard product marketed throughout the world.

[1] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Alcan Aluminio Do Brasil, S. A. by Lawrence A. Salibra II; for the American Chamber of Commerce in the United Kingdom et al. by Douglas E. Rosenthal, Donald I. Baker, and Andreas F. Lowenfeld; and for Cassiar Mining Corp. by David Booth Beers and Wendy S. White.

[2] We have no occasion here to determine whether Congress could, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, authorize federal court personal jurisdiction over alien defendants based on the aggregate of national contacts, rather than on the contacts between the defendant and the State in which the federal court sits. See Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer, 762 F. 2d 290, 293-295 (CA3 1985); DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F. 2d 280, 283 (CA3 1981); see also Born, Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases, to be published in 17 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (1987); Lilly, Jurisdiction Over Domestic and Alien Defendants, 69 Va. L. Rev. 85, 127-145 (1983).

[3] See, e. g., Bean Dredging Corp. v. Dredge Technology Corp., 744 F. 2d 1081 (CA5 1984); Hedrick v. Daiko Shoji Co., 715 F. 2d 1355 (CA9 1983); Nelson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F. 2d 1120, 1126 (CA7 1983), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1024 (1984); Stabilisierungsfonds fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 207 U. S. App. D. C. 375, 378, 647 F. 2d 200, 203 (1981); Poyner v. Erma Werke Gmbh, 618 F. 2d 1186, 1190-1191 (CA6), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 841 (1980); cf. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Philadelphia Resins Corp., 766 F. 2d 440 (CA10 1985) (endorsing stream-of-commerce theory but finding it inapplicable in instant case), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1082 (1986); Montalbano v. Easco Hand Tools, Inc., 766 F. 2d 737 (CA2 1985) (noting potential applicability of stream-of-commerce theory, but remanding for further factual findings). See generally Currie, The Growth of the Long-Arm: Eight Years of Extended Jurisdiction in Illinois, 1963 U. Ill. Law Forum 533, 546-560 (approving and tracing development of the stream-of-commerce theory); C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069, pp. 259-261 (1969) (recommending in effect a stream-of-commerce approach); Von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1121, 1168-1172 (1966) (same).

[4] The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appears to be the only Court of Appeals to have expressly adopted a narrow construction of the stream-of-commerce theory analogous to the one articulated in Part II-A today, although the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has implicitly adopted it. See Humble v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., 727 F. 2d 709 (CA8 1984); Banton Industries, Inc. v. Dimatic Die & Tool Co., 801 F. 2d 1283 (CA11 1986). Two other Courts of Appeals have found the theory inapplicable when only a single sale occurred in the forum State, but do not appear committed to the interpretation of the theory that the Court adopts today. E. g., Chung v. NANA Development Corp., 783 F. 2d 1124 (CA4), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 948 (1986); Dalmau Rodriguez v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 781 F. 2d 9 (CA1 1986). Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not interpreted the theory as JUSTICE O'CONNOR's opinion has, but has rejected stream-of-commerce arguments for jurisdiction when the relationship between the distributor and the defendant "remains in dispute" and "evidence indicating that [defendant] could anticipate either use of its product or litigation in [the forum State] is totally lacking," Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer, 762 F. 2d 290, 298, 300, n. 13, cert. denied, 474 U. S. 980 (1985), and when the defendant's product was not sold in the forum State and the defendant "did not take advantage of an indirect marketing scheme," DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F. 2d 280, 285, cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1085 (1981).

[5] In dissent, I argued that the distinction was without constitutional significance, because in my view the foreseeability that a customer would use a product in a distant State was a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. 444 U. S., at 306-307, and nn. 11, 12. See also id., at 315 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) ("I cannot agree that jurisdiction is necessarily lacking if the product enters the State not through the channels of distribution but in the course of its intended use by the consumer"); id., at 318-319 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting) ("[F]oreseeable use in another State seems to me little different from foreseeable resale in another State"). But I do not read the decision in World-Wide Volkswagen to establish a per se rule against the exercise of jurisdiction where the contacts arise from a consumer's use of the product in a given State, but only a rule against jurisdiction in cases involving "one, isolated occurrence [of consumer use, amounting to] . . . the fortuitous circumstance . . . ." Id., at 295. See Hedrick v. Daiko Shoji Co., 715 F. 2d, at 1358-1359.

[6] Moreover, the Court found that "at least 18 percent of the tubes sold in a particular California motorcycle supply shop contained Asahi valve assemblies," App. to Pet. for Cert. C-11, n. 5, and that Asahi had an ongoing business relationship with Cheng Shin involving average annual sales of hundreds of thousands of valve assemblies, id., at C-2.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

[463] Joel S. Perwin argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.

Thomas H. Oehmke argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Florida's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to "[a]ny person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state," who, inter alia, "[b]reach[es] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state," so long as the cause of action [464] arises from the alleged contractual breach. Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (1)(g) (Supp. 1984). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, sitting in diversity, relied on this provision in exercising personal jurisdiction over a Michigan resident who allegedly had breached a franchise agreement with a Florida corporation by failing to make required payments in Florida. The question presented is whether this exercise of long-arm jurisdiction offended "traditional conception[s] of fair play and substantial justice" embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320 (1945).

I

A

Burger King Corporation is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are in Miami. It is one of the world's largest restaurant organizations, with over 3,000 outlets in the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 8 foreign nations. Burger King conducts approximately 80% of its business through a franchise operation that the company styles the "Burger King System" — "a comprehensive restaurant format and operating system for the sale of uniform and quality food products." App. 46.^[1] Burger King licenses its franchisees to use its trademarks and service marks for a period of 20 years and leases standardized restaurant facilities to them for the same term. In addition, franchisees acquire a variety of proprietary information concerning the "standards, specifications, procedures and methods for operating [465] a Burger King Restaurant." Id., at 52. They also receive market research and advertising assistance; ongoing training in restaurant management;^[2] and accounting, cost-control, and inventory-control guidance. By permitting franchisees to tap into Burger King's established national reputation and to benefit from proven procedures for dispensing standardized fare, this system enables them to go into the restaurant business with significantly lowered barriers to entry.^[3]

In exchange for these benefits, franchisees pay Burger King an initial $40,000 franchise fee and commit themselves to payment of monthly royalties, advertising and sales promotion fees, and rent computed in part from monthly gross sales. Franchisees also agree to submit to the national organization's exacting regulation of virtually every conceivable aspect of their operations.^[4] Burger King imposes these standards and undertakes its rigid regulation out of conviction that "[u]niformity of service, appearance, and quality of product is essential to the preservation of the Burger King image and the benefits accruing therefrom to both Franchisee and Franchisor." Id., at 31.

Burger King oversees its franchise system through a two-tiered administrative structure. The governing contracts [466] provide that the franchise relationship is established in Miami and governed by Florida law, and call for payment of all required fees and forwarding of all relevant notices to the Miami headquarters.^[5] The Miami headquarters sets policy and works directly with its franchisees in attempting to resolve major problems. See nn. 7, 9, infra. Day-to-day monitoring of franchisees, however, is conducted through a network of 10 district offices which in turn report to the Miami headquarters.

The instant litigation grows out of Burger King's termination of one of its franchisees, and is aptly described by the franchisee as "a divorce proceeding among commercial partners." 5 Record 4. The appellee John Rudzewicz, a Michigan citizen and resident, is the senior partner in a Detroit accounting firm. In 1978, he was approached by Brian MacShara, the son of a business acquaintance, who suggested that they jointly apply to Burger King for a franchise in the Detroit area. MacShara proposed to serve as the manager of the restaurant if Rudzewicz would put up the investment capital; in exchange, the two would evenly share the profits. Believing that MacShara's idea offered attractive investment and tax-deferral opportunities, Rudzewicz agreed to the venture. 6 id., at 438-439, 444, 460.

Rudzewicz and MacShara jointly applied for a franchise to Burger King's Birmingham, Michigan, district office in the autumn of 1978. Their application was forwarded to Burger King's Miami headquarters, which entered into a preliminary agreement with them in February 1979. During the ensuing four months it was agreed that Rudzewicz and MacShara would assume operation of an existing facility in Drayton Plains, Michigan. MacShara attended the prescribed management courses in Miami during this period, see n. 2, supra, and the franchisees purchased $165,000 worth of restaurant equipment from Burger King's Davmor Industries division in [467] Miami. Even before the final agreements were signed, however, the parties began to disagree over site-development fees, building design, computation of monthly rent, and whether the franchisees would be able to assign their liabilities to a corporation they had formed.^[6] During these disputes Rudzewicz and MacShara negotiated both with the Birmingham district office and with the Miami headquarters.^[7] With some misgivings, Rudzewicz and MacShara finally obtained limited concessions from the Miami headquarters,^[8] signed the final agreements, and commenced operations in June 1979. By signing the final agreements, Rudzewicz obligated himself personally to payments exceeding $1 million over the 20-year franchise relationship.

[468] The Drayton Plains facility apparently enjoyed steady business during the summer of 1979, but patronage declined after a recession began later that year. Rudzewicz and MacShara soon fell far behind in their monthly payments to Miami. Headquarters sent notices of default, and an extended period of negotiations began among the franchisees, the Birmingham district office, and the Miami headquarters. After several Burger King officials in Miami had engaged in prolonged but ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with the franchisees by mail and by telephone,^[9] headquarters terminated the franchise and ordered Rudzewicz and MacShara to vacate the premises. They refused and continued to occupy and operate the facility as a Burger King restaurant.

B

Burger King commenced the instant action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 1981, invoking that court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a) and its original jurisdiction over federal trademark disputes pursuant to § 1338(a).^[10] Burger King alleged that Rudzewicz and MacShara had breached their franchise obligations "within [the jurisdiction of] this district court" by failing to make the required payments "at plaintiff's place of business in Miami, Dade County, Florida," ¶ 6, App. 121, and also charged that they were tortiously infringing [469] its trademarks and service marks through their continued, unauthorized operation as a Burger King restaurant, ¶¶ 35-53, App. 130-135. Burger King sought damages, injunctive relief, and costs and attorney's fees. Rudzewicz and MacShara entered special appearances and argued, inter alia, that because they were Michigan residents and because Burger King's claim did not "arise" within the Southern District of Florida, the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The District Court denied their motions after a hearing, holding that, pursuant to Florida's long-arm statute, "a non-resident Burger King franchisee is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court in actions arising out of its franchise agreements." Id., at 138. Rudzewicz and MacShara then filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking damages for alleged violations by Burger King of Michigan's Franchise Investment Law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1501 et seq. (1979).

After a 3-day bench trial, the court again concluded that it had "jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this cause." App. 159. Finding that Rudzewicz and MacShara had breached their franchise agreements with Burger King and had infringed Burger King's trademarks and service marks, the court entered judgment against them, jointly and severally, for $228,875 in contract damages. The court also ordered them "to immediately close Burger King Restaurant Number 775 from continued operation or to immediately give the keys and possession of said restaurant to Burger King Corporation," id., at 163, found that they had failed to prove any of the required elements of their counterclaim, and awarded costs and attorney's fees to Burger King.

Rudzewicz appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.^[11] A divided panel of that Circuit reversed the [470] judgment, concluding that the District Court could not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Rudzewicz pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984) because "the circumstances of the Drayton Plains franchise and the negotiations which led to it left Rudzewicz bereft of reasonable notice and financially unprepared for the prospect of franchise litigation in Florida." Burger King Corp. v. MacShara, 724 F. 2d 1505, 1513 (1984). Accordingly, the panel majority concluded that "[j]urisdiction under these circumstances would offend the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due process." Ibid.

Burger King appealed the Eleventh Circuit's judgment to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2), and we postponed probable jurisdiction. 469 U. S. 814 (1984). Because it is unclear whether the Eleventh Circuit actually held that Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984) itself is unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that jurisdiction by appeal does not properly lie and therefore dismiss the appeal.^[12] Treating the jurisdictional [471] statement as a petition for a writ of certiorari, see 28 U. S. C. § 2103, we grant the petition and now reverse.

II

A

The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a [472] forum with which he has established no meaningful "contacts, ties, or relations." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 319.^[13] By requiring that individuals have "fair warning that a particular activity may subject [them] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign," Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 218 (1977) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment), the Due Process Clause "gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit," World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 297 (1980).

Where a forum seeks to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there,^[14] this "fair warning" requirement is satisfied if the defendant has "purposefully directed" his activities at residents of the forum, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S. 770, 774 (1984), and the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or relate to" those activities, Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414 [473] (1984).^[15] Thus "[t]he forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State" and those products subsequently injure forum consumers. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 297-298. Similarly, a publisher who distributes magazines in a distant State may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting there from an allegedly defamatory story. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra; see also Calder v. Jones, 465 U. S. 783 (1984) (suit against author and editor). And with respect to interstate contractual obligations, we have emphasized that parties who "reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state" are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of their activities. Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U. S. 643, 647 (1950). See also McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S. 220, 222-223 (1957).

We have noted several reasons why a forum legitimately may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who "purposefully directs" his activities toward forum residents. A State generally has a "manifest interest" in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors. Id., at 223; see also Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, at 776. Moreover, where individuals "purposefully derive benefit" from their interstate activities, Kulko v. California Superior Court, [474] 436 U. S. 84, 96 (1978), it may well be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other States for consequences that arise proximately from such activities; the Due Process Clause may not readily be wielded as a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations that have been voluntarily assumed. And because "modern transportation and communications have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity," it usually will not be unfair to subject him to the burdens of litigating in another forum for disputes relating to such activity. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223.

Notwithstanding these considerations, the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established "minimum contacts" in the forum State. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 316. Although it has been argued that foreseeability of causing injury in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts there when policy considerations so require,^[16] the Court has consistently held that this kind of foreseeability is not a "sufficient benchmark" for exercising personal jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 295. Instead, "the foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis . . . is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Id., at 297. In defining when it is that a potential defendant should "reasonably anticipate" out-of-state litigation, the Court frequently has drawn from the reasoning of Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958):

"The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. The application [475] of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws."

This "purposeful availment" requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of "random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated" contacts, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 774; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 299, or of the "unilateral activity of another party or a third person," Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, supra, at 417.^[17] Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a "substantial connection" with the forum State. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223; see also Kulko v. California Superior Court, supra, at 94, n. 7.^[18] Thus where the defendant "deliberately" has [476] engaged in significant activities within a State, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, at 781, or has created "continuing obligations" between himself and residents of the forum, Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U. S., at 648, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are shielded by "the benefits and protections" of the forum's laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.

Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum State. Although territorial presence frequently will enhance a potential defendant's affiliation with a State and reinforce the reasonable foreseeability of suit there, it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted. So long as a commercial actor's efforts are "purposefully directed" toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, at 774-775; see also Calder v. Jones, 465 U. S., at 788-790; McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 222-223. Cf. Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, 317 (1943).

Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with "fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S., at 320. Thus [477] courts in "appropriate case[s]" may evaluate "the burden on the defendant," "the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute," "the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief," "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies," and the "shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 292. These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required. See, e. g., Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, at 780; Calder v. Jones, supra, at 788-789; McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223-224. On the other hand, where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable. Most such considerations usually may be accommodated through means short of finding jurisdiction unconstitutional. For example, the potential clash of the forum's law with the "fundamental substantive social policies" of another State may be accommodated through application of the forum's choice-of-law rules.^[19] Similarly, a defendant claiming substantial inconvenience may seek a change of venue.^[20] Nevertheless, minimum requirements inherent in the concept of "fair play and substantial [478] justice" may defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum activities. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 292; see also Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 36-37 (1971). As we previously have noted, jurisdictional rules may not be employed in such a way as to make litigation "so gravely difficult and inconvenient" that a party unfairly is at a "severe disadvantage" in comparison to his opponent. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, 18 (1972) (re forum-selection provisions); McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223-224.

B

(1)

Applying these principles to the case at hand, we believe there is substantial record evidence supporting the District Court's conclusion that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Rudzewicz in Florida for the alleged breach of his franchise agreement did not offend due process. At the outset, we note a continued division among lower courts respecting whether and to what extent a contract can constitute a "contact" for purposes of due process analysis.^[21] If the question is whether an individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot. The Court long ago rejected the notion that personal jurisdiction might turn on "mechanical" tests, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra, at 319, or on "conceptualistic . . . theories of the place of contracting or of performance," Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, [479] 318 U. S., at 316. Instead, we have emphasized the need for a "highly realistic" approach that recognizes that a "contract" is "ordinarily but an intermediate step serving to tie up prior business negotiations with future consequences which themselves are the real object of the business transaction." Id., at 316-317. It is these factors — prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing — that must be evaluated in determining whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum.

In this case, no physical ties to Florida can be attributed to Rudzewicz other than MacShara's brief training course in Miami.^[22] Rudzewicz did not maintain offices in Florida and, for all that appears from the record, has never even visited there. Yet this franchise dispute grew directly out of "a contract which had a substantial connection with that State." McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 223 (emphasis added). Eschewing the option of operating an independent local enterprise, Rudzewicz deliberately "reach[ed] out beyond" Michigan and negotiated with a Florida corporation for the purchase of a long-term franchise and [480] the manifold benefits that would derive from affiliation with a nationwide organization. Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U. S., at 647. Upon approval, he entered into a carefully structured 20-year relationship that envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts with Burger King in Florida. In light of Rudzewicz' voluntary acceptance of the long-term and exacting regulation of his business from Burger King's Miami headquarters, the "quality and nature" of his relationship to the company in Florida can in no sense be viewed as "random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 253; Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 774; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 299. Rudzewicz' refusal to make the contractually required payments in Miami, and his continued use of Burger King's trademarks and confidential business information after his termination, caused foreseeable injuries to the corporation in Florida. For these reasons it was, at the very least, presumptively reasonable for Rudzewicz to be called to account there for such injuries.

The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that in light of the supervision emanating from Burger King's district office in Birmingham, Rudzewicz reasonably believed that "the Michigan office was for all intents and purposes the embodiment of Burger King" and that he therefore had no "reason to anticipate a Burger King suit outside of Michigan." 724 F. 2d, at 1511. See also post, at 488-489 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). This reasoning overlooks substantial record evidence indicating that Rudzewicz most certainly knew that he was affiliating himself with an enterprise based primarily in Florida. The contract documents themselves emphasize that Burger King's operations are conducted and supervised from the Miami headquarters, that all relevant notices and payments must be sent there, and that the agreements were made in and enforced from Miami. See n. 5, supra. Moreover, the parties' actual course of dealing repeatedly confirmed that decisionmaking authority was vested in the Miami headquarters [481] and that the district office served largely as an intermediate link between the headquarters and the franchisees. When problems arose over building design, site-development fees, rent computation, and the defaulted payments, Rudzewicz and MacShara learned that the Michigan office was powerless to resolve their disputes and could only channel their communications to Miami. Throughout these disputes, the Miami headquarters and the Michigan franchisees carried on a continuous course of direct communications by mail and by telephone, and it was the Miami headquarters that made the key negotiating decisions out of which the instant litigation arose. See nn. 7, 9, supra.

Moreover, we believe the Court of Appeals gave insufficient weight to provisions in the various franchise documents providing that all disputes would be governed by Florida law. The franchise agreement, for example, stated:

"This Agreement shall become valid when executed and accepted by BKC at Miami, Florida; it shall be deemed made and entered into in the State of Florida and shall be governed and construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. The choice of law designation does not require that all suits concerning this Agreement be filed in Florida." App. 72.

See also n. 5, supra. The Court of Appeals reasoned that choice-of-law provisions are irrelevant to the question of personal jurisdiction, relying on Hanson v. Denckla for the proposition that "the center of gravity for choice-of-law purposes does not necessarily confer the sovereign prerogative to assert jurisdiction." 724 F. 2d, at 1511-1512, n. 10, citing 357 U. S., at 254. This reasoning misperceives the import of the quoted proposition. The Court in Hanson and subsequent cases has emphasized that choice-of-law analysis — which focuses on all elements of a transaction, and not simply on the defendant's conduct — is distinct from minimum-contracts jurisdictional analysis — which focuses at the threshold [482] solely on the defendant's purposeful connection to the forum.^[23] Nothing in our cases, however, suggests that a choice-of-law provision should be ignored in considering whether a defendant has "purposefully invoked the benefits and protections of a State's laws" for jurisdictional purposes. Although such a provision standing alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction, we believe that, when combined with the 20-year interdependent relationship Rudzewicz established with Burger King's Miami headquarters, it reinforced his deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there. As Judge Johnson argued in his dissent below, Rudzewicz "purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of Florida's laws" by entering into contracts expressly providing that those laws would govern franchise disputes. 724 F. 2d, at 1513.^[24]

(2)

Nor has Rudzewicz pointed to other factors that can be said persuasively to outweigh the considerations discussed above and to establish the unconstitutionality of Florida's assertion of jurisdiction. We cannot conclude that Florida had no "legitimate interest in holding [Rudzewicz] answerable [483] on a claim related to" the contacts he had established in that State. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 776; see also McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 223 (noting that State frequently will have a "manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents").^[25] Moreover, although Rudzewicz has argued at some length that Michigan's Franchise Investment Law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1501 et seq. (1979), governs many aspects of this franchise relationship, he has not demonstrated how Michigan's acknowledged interest might possibly render jurisdiction in Florida unconstitutional.^[26] Finally, the Court of Appeals' assertion that the Florida litigation "severely impaired [Rudzewicz'] ability to call Michigan witnesses who might be essential to his defense and counterclaim," 724 F. 2d, at 1512-1513, is wholly without support in the record.^[27] And even to the extent that it is inconvenient [484] for a party who has minimum contacts with a forum to litigate there, such considerations most frequently can be accommodated through a change of venue. See n. 20, supra. Although the Court has suggested that inconvenience may at some point become so substantial as to achieve constitutional magnitude, McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., supra, at 223, this is not such a case.

The Court of Appeals also concluded, however, that the parties' dealings involved "a characteristic disparity of bargaining power" and "elements of surprise," and that Rudzewicz "lacked fair notice" of the potential for litigation in Florida because the contractual provisions suggesting to the contrary were merely "boilerplate declarations in a lengthy printed contract." 724 F. 2d, at 1511-1512, and n. 10. See also post, at 489-490 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Rudzewicz presented many of these arguments to the District Court, contending that Burger King was guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, and duress; that it gave insufficient notice in its dealings with him; and that the contract was one of adhesion. See 4 Record 687-691. After a 3-day bench trial, the District Court found that Burger King had made no misrepresentations, that Rudzewicz and MacShara "were and are experienced and sophisticated businessmen," and that "at no time" did they "ac[t] under economic duress or disadvantage imposed by" Burger King. App. 157-158. See also 7 Record 648-649. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires that "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous," and neither Rudzewicz nor the Court of Appeals has pointed to record evidence that would support a "definite and firm conviction" that the District Court's findings are mistaken. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948). See also [485] Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573-576 (1985). To the contrary, Rudzewicz was represented by counsel throughout these complex transactions and, as Judge Johnson observed in dissent below, was himself an experienced accountant "who for five months conducted negotiations with Burger King over the terms of the franchise and lease agreements, and who obligated himself personally to contracts requiring over time payments that exceeded $1 million." 724 F. 2d, at 1514. Rudzewicz was able to secure a modest reduction in rent and other concessions from Miami headquarters, see nn. 8, 9, supra; moreover, to the extent that Burger King's terms were inflexible, Rudzewicz presumably decided that the advantages of affiliating with a national organization provided sufficient commercial benefits to offset the detriments.^[28]

III

Notwithstanding these considerations, the Court of Appeals apparently believed that it was necessary to reject jurisdiction in this case as a prophylactic measure, reasoning that an affirmance of the District Court's judgment would result in the exercise of jurisdiction over "out-of-state consumers to collect payments due on modest personal purchases" and would "sow the seeds of default judgments against franchisees owing smaller debts." 724 F. 2d, at 1511. We share the Court of Appeals' broader concerns and therefore reject any talismanic jurisdictional formulas; "the [486] facts of each case must [always] be weighed" in determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with "fair play and substantial justice." Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S., at 92.^[29] The "quality and nature" of an interstate transaction may sometimes be so "random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated"^[30] that it cannot fairly be said that the potential defendant "should reasonably anticipate being haled into court" in another jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 297; see also n. 18, supra. We also have emphasized that jurisdiction may not be grounded on a contract whose terms have been obtained through "fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power" and whose application would render litigation "so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [a party] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S., at 12, 18. Cf. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 94-96 (1972); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311, 329 (1964) (Black, J., dissenting) (jurisdictional rules may not be employed against small consumers so as to "crippl[e] their defense"). Just as the Due Process Clause allows flexibility in ensuring that commercial actors are not effectively "judgment proof" for the consequences of obligations they voluntarily assume in other States, McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 223, so too does it prevent rules that would unfairly enable them to obtain default judgments against unwitting customers. Cf. United States v. Rumely, 345 U. S. 41, 44 (1953) (courts must not be " `blind' " to what " `[a]ll others can see and understand' ").

[487] For the reasons set forth above, however, these dangers are not present in the instant case. Because Rudzewicz established a substantial and continuing relationship with Burger King's Miami headquarters, received fair notice from the contract documents and the course of dealing that he might be subject to suit in Florida, and has failed to demonstrate how jurisdiction in that forum would otherwise be fundamentally unfair, we conclude that the District Court's exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984) did not offend due process. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE WHITE joins, dissenting.

In my opinion there is a significant element of unfairness in requiring a franchisee to defend a case of this kind in the forum chosen by the franchisor. It is undisputed that appellee maintained no place of business in Florida, that he had no employees in that State, and that he was not licensed to do business there. Appellee did not prepare his French fries, shakes, and hamburgers in Michigan, and then deliver them into the stream of commerce "with the expectation that they [would] be purchased by consumers in" Florida. Ante, at 473. To the contrary, appellee did business only in Michigan, his business, property, and payroll taxes were payable in that State, and he sold all of his products there.

Throughout the business relationship, appellee's principal contacts with appellant were with its Michigan office. Notwithstanding its disclaimer, ante, at 478, the Court seems ultimately to rely on nothing more than standard boilerplate language contained in various documents, ante, at 481, [488] to establish that appellee " `purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of Florida's laws.' " Ante, at 482. Such superficial analysis creates a potential for unfairness not only in negotiations between franchisors and their franchisees but, more significantly, in the resolution of the disputes that inevitably arise from time to time in such relationships.

Judge Vance's opinion for the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit adequately explains why I would affirm the judgment of that court. I particularly find the following more persuasive than what this Court has written today:

"Nothing in the course of negotiations gave Rudzewicz reason to anticipate a Burger King suit outside of Michigan. The only face-to-face or even oral contact Rudzewicz had with Burger King throughout months of protracted negotiations was with representatives of the Michigan office. Burger King had the Michigan office interview Rudzewicz and MacShara, appraise their application, discuss price terms, recommend the site which the defendants finally agreed to, and attend the final closing ceremony. There is no evidence that Rudzewicz ever negotiated with anyone in Miami or even sent mail there during negotiations. He maintained no staff in the state of Florida, and as far as the record reveals, he has never even visited the state.

"The contracts contemplated the startup of a local Michigan restaurant whose profits would derive solely from food sales made to customers in Drayton Plains. The sale, which involved the use of an intangible trademark in Michigan and occupancy of a Burger King facility there, required no performance in the state of Florida. Under the contract, the local Michigan district office was responsible for providing all of the services due Rudzewicz, including advertising and management consultation. Supervision, moreover, emanated from that office alone. To Rudzewicz, the Michigan office was for all intents and purposes the embodiment [489] of Burger King. He had reason to believe that his working relationship with Burger King began and ended in Michigan, not at the distant and anonymous Florida headquarters. . . .

"Given that the office in Rudzewicz' home state conducted all of the negotiations and wholly supervised the contract, we believe that he had reason to assume that the state of the supervisory office would be the same state in which Burger King would file suit. Rudzewicz lacked fair notice that the distant corporate headquarters which insulated itself from direct dealings with him would later seek to assert jurisdiction over him in the courts of its own home state. . . .

"Just as Rudzewicz lacked notice of the possibility of suit in Florida, he was financially unprepared to meet its added costs. The franchise relationship in particular is fraught with potential for financial surprise. The device of the franchise gives local retailers the access to national trademark recognition which enables them to compete with better-financed, more efficient chain stores. This national affiliation, however, does not alter the fact that the typical franchise store is a local concern serving at best a neighborhood or community. Neither the revenues of a local business nor the geographical range of its market prepares the average franchise owner for the cost of distant litigation. . . .

"The particular distribution of bargaining power in the franchise relationship further impairs the franchisee's financial preparedness. In a franchise contract, `the franchisor normally occupies [the] dominant role'. . . .

"We discern a characteristic disparity of bargaining power in the facts of this case. There is no indication that Rudzewicz had any latitude to negotiate a reduced rent or franchise fee in exchange for the added risk of suit in Florida. He signed a standard form contract whose terms were non-negotiable and which appeared [490] in some respects to vary from the more favorable terms agreed to in earlier discussions. In fact, the final contract required a minimum monthly rent computed on a base far in excess of that discussed in oral negotiations. Burger King resisted price concessions, only to sue Rudzewicz far from home. In doing so, it severely impaired his ability to call Michigan witnesses who might be essential to his defense and counterclaim.

"In sum, we hold that the circumstances of the Drayton Plains franchise and the negotiations which led to it left Rudzewicz bereft of reasonable notice and financially unprepared for the prospect of franchise litigation in Florida. Jurisdiction under these circumstances would offend the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due process." 724 F. 2d 1505, 1511-1513 (1984) (footnotes omitted).

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

[1] Burger King's standard Franchise Agreement further defines this system as "a restaurant format and operating system, including a recognized design, decor, color scheme and style of building, uniform standards, specifications and procedures of operation, quality and uniformity of products and services offered, and procedures for inventory and management control. . . ." App. 43.

[2] Mandatory training seminars are conducted at Burger King University in Miami and at Whopper College Regional Training Centers around the country. See id., at 39; 6 Record 540-541.

[3] See App. 43-44. See generally H. Brown, Franchising Realities and Remedies 6-7, 16-17 (2d ed. 1978).

[4] See, e. g., App. 24-25, 26 (range, "quality, appearance, size, taste, and processing" of menu items), 31 ("standards of service and cleanliness"), 32 (hours of operation), 47 ("official mandatory restaurant operating standards, specifications and procedures"), 48-50 (building layout, displays, equipment, vending machines, service, hours of operation, uniforms, advertising, and promotion), 53 (employee training), 55-56 (accounting and auditing requirements), 59 (insurance requirements). Burger King also imposes extensive standards governing franchisee liability, assignments, defaults, and termination. See id., at 61-74.

[5] See id., at 10-11, 37, 43, 72-73, 113. See infra, at 481.

[6] The latter two matters were the major areas of disagreement. Notwithstanding that Burger King's franchise offering advised that minimum rent would be based on a percentage of "approximated capitalized site acquisition and construction costs," id.,at 23, Rudzewicz assumed that rent would be a function solely of renovation costs, and he thereby underestimated the minimum monthly rent by more than $2,000. The District Court found Rudzewicz' interpretation "incredible." 7 Record 649.

With respect to assignment, Rudzewicz and MacShara had formed RMBK Corp. with the intent of assigning to it all of their interest and liabilities in the franchise. Consistent with the contract documents, however, Burger King insisted that the two remain personally liable for their franchise obligations. See App. 62, 109. Although the franchisees contended that Burger King officials had given them oral assurances concerning assignment, the District Court found that pursuant to the parol evidence rule any such assurances "even if they had been made and were misleading were joined and merged" into the final agreement. 7 Record 648.

[7] Although Rudzewicz and MacShara dealt with the Birmingham district office on a regular basis, they communicated directly with the Miami headquarters in forming the contracts; moreover, they learned that the district office had "very little" decisionmaking authority and accordingly turned directly to headquarters in seeking to resolve their disputes. 5 id., at 292. See generally App. 5-6; 5 Record 167-168, 174-179, 182-184, 198-199, 217-218, 264-265, 292-294; 6 id., at 314-316, 363, 373, 416, 463, 496.

[8] They were able to secure a $10,439 reduction in rent for the third year. App. 82; 5 Record 222-223; 6 id., at 500.

[9] Miami's policy was to "deal directly" with franchisees when they began to encounter financial difficulties, and to involve district office personnel only when necessary. 5 id., at 95. In the instant case, for example, the Miami office handled all credit problems, ordered cost-cutting measures, negotiated for a partial refinancing of the franchisees' debts, communicated directly with the franchisees in attempting to resolve the dispute, and was responsible for all termination matters. See 2 id., at 59-69; 5 id., at 84-89, 94-95, 97-98, 100-103, 116-128, 151-152, 158, 163; 6 id., at 395-397, 436-438, 510-511, 524-525.

[10] Rudzewicz and MacShara were served in Michigan with summonses and copies of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 2 id., at 102-103.

[11] MacShara did not appeal his judgment. See Burger King Corp. v. MacShara, 724 F. 2d 1505, 1506, n. 1 (CA11 1984). In addition, Rudzewicz entered into a compromise with Burger King and waived his right to appeal the District Court's finding of trademark infringement and its entry of injunctive relief. See 4 Record 804-816. Accordingly, we need not address the extent to which the tortious act provisions of Florida's long-arm statute, see Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b) (Supp. 1984), may constitutionally extend to out-of-state trademark infringement. Cf. Calder v. Jones, 465 U. S. 783, 788-789 (1984) (tortious out-of-state conduct); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S. 770, 776 (1984) (same).

[12] The District Court had found both that Rudzewicz fell within the reach of Florida's long-arm statute and that the exercise of jurisdiction was constitutional. The Court of Appeals did not consider the statutory question, however, because, as Burger King acknowledged at argument, that court "accepted the parties' stipulation" that § 48.193 reached Rudzewicz "in lieu of [making] a determination of what Florida law provides." Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. Burger King contends that an appeal is proper "on the basis of the Circuit Court's holding that given that stipulation the statute was unconstitutional as applied." Id.,at 13 (emphasis added).

We disagree. Our "overriding policy, historically encouraged by Congress, of minimizing the mandatory docket of this Court in the interests of sound judicial administration," Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 98 (1974) (construing 28 U. S. C. § 1253), would be threatened if litigants could obtain an appeal through the expedient of stipulating to a particular construction of state law where state law might in fact be in harmony with the Federal Constitution. Jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2) is properly invoked only where a court of appeals squarely has "held" that a state statute is unconstitutional on its face or as applied; jurisdiction does not lie if the decision might rest on other grounds. Public Service Comm'n v. Batesville Telephone Co., 284 U. S. 6, 7 (1931) (per curiam). Consistent with "our practice of strict construction" of § 1254(2), Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 42, n. 1 (1970) (per curiam), we believe that an appeal cannot lie where a court of appeals' judgment rests solely on the stipulated applicability of state law. Rather, it must be reasonably clear that the court independently concluded that the challenged statute governs the case and held the statute itself unconstitutional as so applied. The Court of Appeals did neither in this case, concluding simply that "[j]urisdiction under these circumstances would offend the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due process." 724 F. 2d, at 1513.

Of course, if it were clear under Florida law that § 48.193(1)(g) governed every transaction falling within its literal terms, there could be no objection to a stipulation that merely recognized this established construction. But the Florida Supreme Court has not ruled on the breadth of § 48.193 (1)(g), and several state appellate courts have held that the provision extends only to the limits of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411, 412-414 (Fla. App. 1984); Lakewood Pipe of Texas, Inc. v. Rubaii, 379 So. 2d 475, 477 (Fla. App. 1979), appeal dism'd, 383 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1980); Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. App. 1979). If § 48.193(1)(g) is construed and applied in accordance with due process limitations as a matter of state law, then an appeal is improper because the statute cannot be "invalid as repugnant to the Constitution . . . of the United States," 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2), since its boundaries are defined by, rather than being in excess of, the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Calder v. Jones, supra, at 787-788, n. 7; Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84, 90, and n. 4 (1978).

[13] Although this protection operates to restrict state power, it "must be seen as ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by the Due Process Clause" rather than as a function "of federalism concerns." Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 702-703, n. 10 (1982).

[14] We have noted that, because the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a "variety of legal arrangements" by which a litigant may give "express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court." Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, supra, at 703. For example, particularly in the commercial context, parties frequently stipulate in advance to submit their controversies for resolution within a particular jurisdiction. See National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311 (1964). Where such forum-selection provisions have been obtained through "freely negotiated" agreements and are not "unreasonable and unjust," The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, 15 (1972), their enforcement does not offend due process.

[15] "Specific" jurisdiction contrasts with "general" jurisdiction, pursuant to which "a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U. S., at 414, n. 9; see also Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U. S. 437 (1952).

[16] See, e. g., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S. 286, 299 (1980) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S. 186, 219 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[17] Applying this principle, the Court has held that the Due Process Clause forbids the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state automobile distributor whose only tie to the forum resulted from a customer's decision to drive there, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra; over a divorced husband sued for child-support payments whose only affiliation with the forum was created by his former spouse's decision to settle there, Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S. 84 (1978); and over a trustee whose only connection with the forum resulted from the settlor's decision to exercise her power of appointment there, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235 (1958). In such instances, the defendant has had no "clear notice that it is subject to suit" in the forum and thus no opportunity to "alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation" there. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, at 297.

[18] So long as it creates a "substantial connection" with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 223. The Court has noted, however, that "some single or occasional acts" related to the forum may not be sufficient to establish jurisdiction if "their nature and quality and the circumstances of their commission" create only an "attenuated" affiliation with the forum. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 318 (1945); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 299. This distinction derives from the belief that, with respect to this category of "isolated" acts, id., at 297, the reasonable foreseeability of litigation in the forum is substantially diminished.

[19] See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U. S. 302, 307-313 (1981) (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). See generally Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 9 (1971).

[20] See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a) ("For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought"). This provision embodies in an expanded version the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, under which a court in appropriate circumstances may decline to exercise its jurisdiction in the interest of the "easy, expeditious and inexpensive" resolution of a controversy in another forum. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501, 508-509 (1947).

[21] See, e. g., Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., 445 U. S. 907, 909-910 (1980) (WHITE, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); Brewer, Jurisdiction in Single Contract Cases, 6 U. Ark. Little Rock L. J. 1, 7-11, 13 (1983); Note, Long-Arm Jurisdiction in Commercial Litigation: When is a Contract a Contact?, 61 B. U. L. Rev. 375, 384-388 (1981).

[22] The Eleventh Circuit held that MacShara's presence in Florida was irrelevant to the question of Rudzewicz' minimum contacts with that forum, reasoning that "Rudzewicz and MacShara never formed a partnership" and "signed the agreements in their individual capacities." 724 F. 2d, at 1513, n. 14. The two did jointly form a corporation through which they were seeking to conduct the franchise, however. See n. 6, supra. They were required to decide which one of them would travel to Florida to satisfy the training requirements so that they could commence business, and Rudzewicz participated in the decision that MacShara would go there. We have previously noted that when commercial activities are "carried on in behalf of" an out-of-state party those activities may sometimes be ascribed to the party, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320 (1945), at least where he is a "primary participant[t]" in the enterprise and has acted purposefully in directing those activities, Calder v. Jones, 465 U. S., at 790. Because MacShara's matriculation at Burger King University is not pivotal to the disposition of this case, we need not resolve the permissible bounds of such attribution.

[23] Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 253-254. See also Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 778; Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S., at 98; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U. S., at 215.

[24] In addition, the franchise agreement's disclaimer that the "choice of law designation does not require that all suits concerning this Agreement be filed in Florida," App. 72 (emphasis added), reasonably should have suggested to Rudzewicz that by negative implication such suits couldbe filed there.

The lease also provided for binding arbitration in Miami of certain condemnation disputes, id., at 113, and Rudzewicz conceded the validity of this provision at oral argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. Although it does not govern the instant dispute, this provision also should have made it apparent to the franchisees that they were dealing directly with the Miami headquarters and that the Birmingham district office was not "for all intents and purposes the embodiment of Burger King." 724 F. 2d, at 1511.

[25] Complaining that "when Burger King is the plaintiff, you won't `have it your way' because it sues all franchisees in Miami," Brief for Appellee 19, Rudzewicz contends that Florida's interest in providing a convenient forum is negligible given the company's size and ability to conduct litigation anywhere in the country. We disagree. Absent compelling considerations, cf. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U. S., at 223, a defendant who has purposefully derived commercial benefit from his affiliations in a forum may not defeat jurisdiction there simply because of his adversary's greater net wealth.

[26] Rudzewicz has failed to show how the District Court's exercise of jurisdiction in this case might have been at all inconsistent with Michigan's interests. To the contrary, the court found that Burger King had fully complied with Michigan law, App. 159, and there is nothing in Michigan's franchise Act suggesting that Michigan would attempt to assert exclusive jurisdiction to resolve franchise disputes affecting its residents. In any event, minimum-contacts analysis presupposes that two or more States may be interested in the outcome of a dispute, and the process of resolving potentially conflicting "fundamental substantive social policies," World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 292, can usually be accommodated through choice-of-law rules rather than through outright preclusion of jurisdiction in one forum. See n. 19, supra.

[27] The only arguable instance of trial inconvenience occurred when Rudzewicz had difficulty in authenticating some corporate records; the court offered him as much time as would be necessary to secure the requisite authentication from the Birmingham district office, and Burger King ultimately stipulated to their authenticity rather than delay the trial. See 7 Record 574-575, 578-579, 582, 598-599.

[28] We do not mean to suggest that the jurisdictional outcome will always be the same in franchise cases. Some franchises may be primarily intrastate in character or involve different decisionmaking structures, such that a franchisee should not reasonably anticipate out-of-state litigation. Moreover, commentators have argued that franchise relationships may sometimes involve unfair business practices in their inception and operation. See H. Brown, Franchising Realities and Remedies 4-5 (2d ed. 1978). For these reasons, we reject Burger King's suggestion for "a general rule, or at least a presumption, that participation in an interstate franchise relationship" represents consent to the jurisdiction of the franchisor's principal place of business. Brief for Appellant 46.

[29] This approach does, of course, preclude clear-cut jurisdictional rules. But any inquiry into "fair play and substantial justice" necessarily requires determinations "in which few answers will be written `in black and white. The greys are dominant and even among them the shades are innumerable.' " Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U. S., at 92.

[30] Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S., at 253; Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S., at 774; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U. S., at 299.

465 U.S. 783

104 S.Ct. 1482

79 L.Ed.2d 804

Iain CALDER and John South, Appellants,

v.

Shirley JONES.

No. 82-1401.

Argued Nov. 8, 1983.

Decided March 20, 1984.

Syllabus

Respondent, a professional entertainer who lives and works in California and whose television career was centered there, brought suit in California Superior Court, claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida and published in the National Enquirer, a national magazine having its largest circulation in California. Petitioners, both residents of Florida, were served with process by mail in Florida, and, on special appearances, moved to quash the service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court granted the motion on the ground that First Amendment concerns weighed against an assertion of jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a valid basis for jurisdiction existed on the theory that petitioners intended to, and did, cause tortious injury to respondent in California.

Held:

1. Jurisdiction by appeal does not lie, but under 28 U.S.C. § 2103 the jurisdictional statement will be treated as a petition for certiorari, which is hereby granted. Pp. 787-788.

2. Jurisdiction over petitioners in California is proper because of their intentional conduct in Florida allegedly calculated to cause injury to respondent in California. Pp. 788-791.

(a) The Due Process Clause permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has "certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2579, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). P. 788.

(b) Here, California is the focal point both of the allegedly libelous article and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the "effects" of their Florida conduct in California. Pp. 788-789.

(c) Petitioners are not charged with mere untargeted negligence, but rather their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. They wrote and edited an article that they [784] knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent, and they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the magazine has its largest circulation. Under these circumstances, petitioners must "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there" to answer for the truth of the statements made in the article. Pp. 789-790.

(d) While petitioners' contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer's activities there, their status as employees does not insulate them from jurisdiction, since each defendant's contact with the forum State must be assessed individually. P. 790.

(e) First Amendment concerns do not enter into the jurisdictional analysis. Such concerns would needlessly complicate an already imprecise inquiry. Moreover, the potential chill on protected First Amendment activity stemming from defamation actions is already taken into account in the constitutional limitations on the substantive law governing such actions. Pp. 790-791.

138 Cal.App.3d 128, 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 (1982), affirmed.

John G. Kester, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Paul S. Ablon, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellee.

Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Shirley Jones brought suit in California Superior Court claiming that she had been libeled in an article written and edited by petitioners in Florida. The article was published in a national magazine with a large circulation in California. Petitioners were served with process by mail in Florida and caused special appearances to be entered on their behalf, moving to quash the service of process for lack of per [785] sonal jurisdiction. The superior court granted the motion on the ground that First Amendment concerns weighed against an assertion of jurisdiction otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause. The California Court of Appeal reversed, rejecting the suggestion that First Amendment considerations enter into the jurisdictional analysis. We now affirm.

Respondent lives and works in California. She and her husband brought this suit against the National Enquirer, Inc., its local distributing company, and petitioners for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm.^[1] The Enquirer is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. It publishes a national weekly newspaper with a total circulation of over 5 million. About 600,000 of those copies, almost twice the level of the next highest State, are sold in California.^[2] Respondent's and her husband's claims were based on an article that appeared in the Enquirer's October 9, 1979 issue. Both the Enquirer and the distributing company answered the complaint and made no objection to the jurisdiction of the California court.

Petitioner South is a reporter employed by the Enquirer. He is a resident of Florida, though he frequently travels to California on business.^[3] South wrote the first draft of the challenged article, and his byline appeared on it. He did most of his research in Florida, relying on phone calls to sources in California for the information contained in the article.^[4] Shortly before publication, South called respondent's [786] home and read to her husband a draft of the article so as to elicit his comments upon it. Aside from his frequent trips and phone calls, South has no other relevant contacts with California.

Petitioner Calder is also a Florida resident. He has been to California only twice—once, on a pleasure trip, prior to the publication of the article and once after to testify in an unrelated trial. Calder is president and editor of the Enquirer. He "oversee[s] just about every function of the Enquirer." J.A., at 24. He reviewed and approved the initial evaluation of the subject of the article and edited it in its final form. He also declined to print a retraction requested by respondent. Calder has no other relevant contacts with California.

In considering petitioners' motion to quash service of process, the superior court surmised that the actions of petitioners in Florida, causing injury to respondent in California, would ordinarily be sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction over them in California.^[5] But the court felt that special solicitude was necessary because of the potential "chilling effect" on reporters and editors which would result from requiring them to appear in remote jurisdictions to answer for the content of articles upon which they worked. The court also noted that respondent's rights could be "fully satisfied" in her suit against the publisher without requiring petitioners to appear as parties. The superior court, therefore, granted the motion.

The California Court of Appeal reversed. 138 Cal.App.3d 128, 187 Cal.Rptr. 825 (1982). The court agreed that neither petitioner's contacts with California would be sufficient [787] for an assertion of jurisdiction on a cause of action unrelated to those contacts. See Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952) (permitting general jurisdiction where defendant's contacts with the forum were "continuous and systematic"). But the court concluded that a valid basis for jurisdiction existed on the theory that petitioners intended to, and did, cause tortious injury to respondent in California. The fact that the actions causing the effects in California were performed outside the State did not prevent the State from asserting jurisdiction over a cause of action arising out of those effects.^[6] The court rejected the superior court's conclusion that First Amendment considerations must be weighed in the scale against jurisdiction.

A timely petition for hearing was denied by the Supreme Court of California. J.A., at 122. On petitioners' appeal to this Court, probable jurisdiction was postponed. --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1766, 76 L.Ed.2d 341 (1983). We conclude that jurisdiction by appeal does not lie. Kulko v. California, 436 U.S. 84, 90, and n. 4, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1695, and n. 4, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).^[7] Treating the jurisdictional statement as [788] a petition for writ of certiorari, as we are authorized to do, 28 U.S.C. § 2103, we hereby grant the petition.^[8]

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has "certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 [61 S.Ct. 339, 342, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) ]." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2579, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). See also Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332, 100 S.Ct. 571, 579, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980). The plaintiff's lack of "contacts" will not defeat otherwise proper jurisdiction, see Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 1480 - 1482, 78 L.Ed.2d ---- (1984), but they may be so manifold as to permit jurisdiction when it would not exist in their absence. Here, the plaintiff is the focus of the activities of the defendants out of which the suit arises. See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957).

The allegedly libelous story concerned the California activities of a California resident. It impugned the professionalism of an entertainer whose television career was centered in California.^[9] The article was drawn from California sources, [789] and the brunt of the harm, in terms both of respondent's emotional distress and the injury to her professional reputation, was suffered in California. In sum, California is the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore proper in California based on the "effects" of their Florida conduct in California. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-298, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567-568, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 37.

Petitioners argue that they are not responsible for the circulation of the article in California. A reporter and an editor, they claim, have no direct economic stake in their employer's sales in a distant State. Nor are ordinary employees able to control their employer's marketing activity. The mere fact that they can "foresee" that the article will be circulated and have an effect in California is not sufficient for an assertion of jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S., at 295, 100 S.Ct., at 566; Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S., at 328-329, 100 S.Ct., at 577-578. They do not "in effect appoint the [article their] agent for service of process." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S., at 296, 100 S.Ct., at 566. Petitioners liken themselves to a welder employed in Florida who works on a boiler which subsequently explodes in California. Cases which hold that jurisdiction will be proper over the manufacturer, Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 893, 80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57 (1969); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), should not be applied to the welder who has no control over and derives no direct benefit from his employer's sales in that distant State.

Petitioners' analogy does not wash. Whatever the status of their hypothetical welder, petitioners are not charged with mere untargeted negligence. Rather, their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. Petitioner South wrote and petitioner Calder edited an article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent. And they knew that the brunt of [790] that injury would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation. Under the circumstances, petitioners must "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there" to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S., at 297, 100 S.Ct., at 567; Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 97-98, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1699-1700, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 216, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2586, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). An individual injured in California need not go to Florida to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in Florida, knowingly cause the injury in California.

Petitioners are correct that their contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer's activities there. On the other hand, their status as employees does not somehow insulate them from jurisdiction. Each defendant's contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually. See Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S., at 332, 100 S.Ct., at 579 ("The requirements of International Shoe . . . must be met as to each defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction"). In this case, petitioners are primary participants in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally directed at a California resident, and jurisdiction over them is proper on that basis.

We also reject the suggestion that First Amendment concerns enter into the jurisdictional analysis. The infusion of such considerations would needlessly complicate an already imprecise inquiry. Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 545, 68 S.Ct. 1213, 1216, 92 L.Ed. 1561 (1948). Moreover, the potential chill on protected First Amendment activity stemming from libel and defamation actions is already taken into account in the constitutional limitations on the substantive law governing such suits. See New York Times, Inc. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). To reintroduce those concerns at the jurisdictional stage would be a form of double counting. We have already declined in other contexts to grant special procedural protections to defendants in libel and defamation actions in addition to the constitutional protect [791] tions embodied in the substantive laws. See, e.g., Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979) (no First Amendment privilege bars inquiry into editorial process). See also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 120 n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 2680 n. 9, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) (implying that no special rules apply for summary judgment).

We hold that jurisdiction over petitioners in California is proper because of their intentional conduct in Florida calculated to cause injury to respondent in California. The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is

Affirmed.

[1] Respondent's husband subsequently filed a voluntary dismissal of his complaint.

[2] A geographic analysis of the total paid circulation for the September 18, 1979 issue of the Enquirer showed total sales, national and international, of 5,292,200. Sales in California were 604,431. The State with the next highest total was New York, with 316,911. J.A., at 39-41.

[3] South stated that during a four-year period he visited California more than 20 times. J.A., at 32. A friend estimated that he came to California from 6 to 12 times each year. J.A., at 66.

[4] The superior court found that South made at least one trip to California in connection with the article. South hotly disputes this finding, claiming that an uncontroverted affidavit shows that he never visited California to research the article. Since we do not rely for our holding on the alleged visit, see n. 6, supra, we find it unnecessary to consider the contention.

[5] California's "long-arm" statute permits an assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant whenever permitted by the state and federal Constitutions. Section 410.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides: "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States."

[6] The Court of Appeal further suggested that petitioner South's investigative activities, including one visit and numerous phone calls to California, formed an independent basis for an assertion of jurisdiction over him in this action. In light of our approval of the "effects" test employed by the California court, we find it unnecessary to reach this alternate ground.

[7] Kulko involved an assertion of jurisdiction under the same California statute at issue here. The Court held that the case was improperly brought to the Court as an appeal, since no state statute was "drawn into question . . . on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2). Petitioners attempt to distinguish Kulko on the ground that the defendant in that case argued only that the Due Process Clause precluded the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over him, whereas petitioners argued below that the California statute as applied to them would be unconstitutional. We are unpersuaded by this shift in emphasis. The jurisdictional statute construed by the California Court of Appeal provides that the State's jurisdiction is as broad as the Constitution permits. See n. 5, supra. As in Kulko, the opinion below does not purport to determine the constitutionality of the California jurisdictional statute. Rather, the question decided was whether the Constitution itself would permit the assertion of jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we find an appeal improper regardless of the terminology in which the petitioners couch their jurisdictional defense.

[8] Although there has not yet been a trial on the merits in this case, the judgment of the California appellate court "is plainly final on the federal issue and is not subject to further review in the state courts." Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 485, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1041, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (1975). Accordingly, as in several past cases presenting jurisdictional issues in this posture, "we conclude that the judgment below is final within the meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 1257." Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 195-196, n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2575-2576, n. 12, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). See also Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 100 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).

[9] The article alleged that respondent drank so heavily as to prevent her from fulfilling her professional obligations. 

[2785] Arthur F. Fergenson, Ellicott City, MD, for Petitioner.

Alexander W. Ross, Jr., Marlton, NJ, for Respondents.

Steven F. Gooby, Robert A. Assuncao, James S. Coons, Ansa Assuncao, LLP, East Brunswick, NJ, Arthur F. Fergenson, Ansa Assuncao, LLP, Ellicott City, MD, Jeffrey W. Green, Sarah O'Rourke Schrup, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

John Vail, Andre M. Mura, Valerie M. Nannery, Washington, DC, Alexander W. Ross, Jr., Janice L. Heinold, Rakoski & Ross, P.C., Marlton, NJ, for Respondents.

Justice KENNEDY announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice SCALIA, and Justice THOMAS join.

Whether a person or entity is subject to the jurisdiction of a state court despite not having been present in the State either at the time of suit or at the time of the alleged injury, and despite not having consented to the exercise of jurisdiction, is a question that arises with great frequency in the routine course of litigation. The rules and standards for determining when a State does or does not have jurisdiction over an absent party have been unclear because of decades-old questions left open in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987).

Here, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, relying in part on Asahi, held that New Jersey's courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of a product so long as the manufacturer "knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states." Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 76, 77, 987 A.2d 575, 591, 592 (2010). Applying that test, the court concluded that a British manufacturer of scrap metal machines was subject to jurisdiction in New Jersey, even though at no time had it advertised in, sent goods to, or in any relevant sense targeted the State.

That decision cannot be sustained. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an extensive opinion with careful attention to this Court's cases and to its own precedent, the "stream of commerce" metaphor carried the decision far afield. Due process protects the defendant's right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power is not lawful unless the defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). There may be exceptions, say, for instance, in cases involving an intentional tort. But the general rule is applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called "stream-of-commerce" doctrine cannot displace it.

[2786] I

This case arises from a products-liability suit filed in New Jersey state court. Robert Nicastro seriously injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine manufactured by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre). The accident occurred in New Jersey, but the machine was manufactured in England, where J. McIntyre is incorporated and operates. The question here is whether the New Jersey courts have jurisdiction over J. McIntyre, notwithstanding the fact that the company at no time either marketed goods in the State or shipped them there. Nicastro was a plaintiff in the New Jersey trial court and is the respondent here; J. McIntyre was a defendant and is now the petitioner.

At oral argument in this Court, Nicastro's counsel stressed three primary facts in defense of New Jersey's assertion of jurisdiction over J. McIntyre. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-30.

First, an independent company agreed to sell J. McIntyre's machines in the United States. J. McIntyre itself did not sell its machines to buyers in this country beyond the U.S. distributor, and there is no allegation that the distributor was under J. McIntyre's control.

Second, J. McIntyre officials attended annual conventions for the scrap recycling industry to advertise J. McIntyre's machines alongside the distributor. The conventions took place in various States, but never in New Jersey.

Third, no more than four machines (the record suggests only one, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 130a), including the machine that caused the injuries that are the basis for this suit, ended up in New Jersey.

In addition to these facts emphasized by petitioner, the New Jersey Supreme Court noted that J. McIntyre held both United States and European patents on its recycling technology. 201 N.J., at 55, 987 A.2d, at 579. It also noted that the U.S. distributor "structured [its] advertising and sales efforts in accordance with" J. McIntyre's "direction and guidance whenever possible," and that "at least some of the machines were sold on consignment to" the distributor. Id., at 55, 56, 987 A.2d, at 579 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In light of these facts, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that New Jersey courts could exercise jurisdiction over petitioner without contravention of the Due Process Clause. Jurisdiction was proper, in that court's view, because the injury occurred in New Jersey; because petitioner knew or reasonably should have known "that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states"; and because petitioner failed to "take some reasonable step to prevent the distribution of its products in this State." Id., at 77, 987 A.2d, at 592.

Both the New Jersey Supreme Court's holding and its account of what it called "[t]he stream-of-commerce doctrine of jurisdiction," id., at 80, 987 A.2d, at 594, were incorrect, however. This Court's Asahi decision may be responsible in part for that court's error regarding the stream of commerce, and this case presents an opportunity to provide greater clarity.

II

The Due Process Clause protects an individual's right to be deprived of life, liberty, or property only by the exercise of lawful power. Cf. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 403, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966) (The Clause "protect[s] a person against having the Government impose burdens upon him except in accordance with the valid laws of the land"). This is no less true with respect to the [2787] power of a sovereign to resolve disputes through judicial process than with respect to the power of a sovereign to prescribe rules of conduct for those within its sphere. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ("Jurisdiction is power to declare the law"). As a general rule, neither statute nor judicial decree may bind strangers to the State. Cf. Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 608-609, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (opinion of SCALIA, J.) (invoking "the phrase coram non judice, `before a person not a judge'—meaning, in effect, that the proceeding in question was not a judicial proceeding because lawful judicial authority was not present, and could therefore not yield a judgment")

A court may subject a defendant to judgment only when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the sovereign "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). Freeform notions of fundamental fairness divorced from traditional practice cannot transform a judgment rendered in the absence of authority into law. As a general rule, the sovereign's exercise of power requires some act by which the defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws," Hanson, 357 U.S., at 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, though in some cases, as with an intentional tort, the defendant might well fall within the State's authority by reason of his attempt to obstruct its laws. In products-liability cases like this one, it is the defendant's purposeful availment that makes jurisdiction consistent with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

A person may submit to a State's authority in a number of ways. There is, of course, explicit consent. E.g., Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). Presence within a State at the time suit commences through service of process is another example. See Burnham, supra. Citizenship or domicile—or, by analogy, incorporation or principal place of business for corporations—also indicates general submission to a State's powers. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, post, p. 2854. Each of these examples reveals circumstances, or a course of conduct, from which it is proper to infer an intention to benefit from and thus an intention to submit to the laws of the forum State. Cf. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). These examples support exercise of the general jurisdiction of the State's courts and allow the State to resolve both matters that originate within the State and those based on activities and events elsewhere. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, and n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). By contrast, those who live or operate primarily outside a State have a due process right not to be subjected to judgment in its courts as a general matter.

There is also a more limited form of submission to a State's authority for disputes that "arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state." International Shoe Co., supra, at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154. Where a defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its [2788] laws," Hanson, supra, at 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, it submits to the judicial power of an otherwise foreign sovereign to the extent that power is exercised in connection with the defendant's activities touching on the State. In other words, submission through contact with and activity directed at a sovereign may justify specific jurisdiction "in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Helicopteros, supra, at 414, n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868; see also Goodyear, post, at 2850-2851.

The imprecision arising from Asahi, for the most part, results from its statement of the relation between jurisdiction and the "stream of commerce." The stream of commerce, like other metaphors, has its deficiencies as well as its utility. It refers to the movement of goods from manufacturers through distributors to consumers, yet beyond that descriptive purpose its meaning is far from exact. This Court has stated that a defendant's placing goods into the stream of commerce "with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers within the forum State" may indicate purposeful availment. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 298, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (finding that expectation lacking). But that statement does not amend the general rule of personal jurisdiction. It merely observes that a defendant may in an appropriate case be subject to jurisdiction without entering the forum—itself an unexceptional proposition—as where manufacturers or distributors "seek to serve" a given State's market. Id., at 295, 100 S.Ct. 559. The principal inquiry in cases of this sort is whether the defendant's activities manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign. In other words, the defendant must "purposefully avai[l] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson, supra, at 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228; Insurance Corp., supra, at 704-705, 102 S.Ct. 2099 ("[A]ctions of the defendant may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court"). Sometimes a defendant does so by sending its goods rather than its agents. The defendant's transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant can be said to have targeted the forum; as a general rule, it is not enough that the defendant might have predicted that its goods will reach the forum State.

In Asahi, an opinion by Justice Brennan for four Justices outlined a different approach. It discarded the central concept of sovereign authority in favor of considerations of fairness and foreseeability. As that concurrence contended, "jurisdiction premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce [without more] is consistent with the Due Process Clause," for "[a]s long as a participant in this process is aware that the final product is being marketed in the forum State, the possibility of a lawsuit there cannot come as a surprise." 480 U.S., at 117, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It was the premise of the concurring opinion that the defendant's ability to anticipate suit renders the assertion of jurisdiction fair. In this way, the opinion made foreseeability the touchstone of jurisdiction.

The standard set forth in Justice Brennan's concurrence was rejected in an opinion written by Justice O'Connor; but the relevant part of that opinion, too, commanded the assent of only four Justices, not a majority of the Court. That opinion stated: "The `substantial connection' between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. The placement of a [2789] product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State." Id., at 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (emphasis deleted; citations omitted).

Since Asahi was decided, the courts have sought to reconcile the competing opinions. But Justice Brennan's concurrence, advocating a rule based on general notions of fairness and foreseeability, is inconsistent with the premises of lawful judicial power. This Court's precedents make clear that it is the defendant's actions, not his expectations, that empower a State's courts to subject him to judgment.

The conclusion that jurisdiction is in the first instance a question of authority rather than fairness explains, for example, why the principal opinion in Burnham "conducted no independent inquiry into the desirability or fairness" of the rule that service of process within a State suffices to establish jurisdiction over an otherwise foreign defendant. 495 U.S., at 621, 110 S.Ct. 2105. As that opinion explained, "[t]he view developed early that each State had the power to hale before its courts any individual who could be found within its borders." Id., at 610, 110 S.Ct. 2105. Furthermore, were general fairness considerations the touchstone of jurisdiction, a lack of purposeful availment might be excused where carefully crafted judicial procedures could otherwise protect the defendant's interests, or where the plaintiff would suffer substantial hardship if forced to litigate in a foreign forum. That such considerations have not been deemed controlling is instructive. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 294, 100 S.Ct. 559.

Two principles are implicit in the foregoing. First, personal jurisdiction requires a forum-by-forum, or sovereign-by-sovereign, analysis. The question is whether a defendant has followed a course of conduct directed at the society or economy existing within the jurisdiction of a given sovereign, so that the sovereign has the power to subject the defendant to judgment concerning that conduct. Personal jurisdiction, of course, restricts "judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty," for due process protects the individual's right to be subject only to lawful power. Insurance Corp., 456 U.S., at 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099. But whether a judicial judgment is lawful depends on whether the sovereign has authority to render it.

The second principle is a corollary of the first. Because the United States is a distinct sovereign, a defendant may in principle be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States but not of any particular State. This is consistent with the premises and unique genius of our Constitution. Ours is "a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it." U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). For jurisdiction, a litigant may have the requisite relationship with the United States Government but not with the government of any individual State. That would be an exceptional case, however. If the defendant is a domestic domiciliary, the courts of its home State are available and can exercise general jurisdiction. And if another State were to assert jurisdiction in an inappropriate case, it would upset the federal balance, which posits that each State has a sovereignty that is not subject to unlawful intrusion by other States. Furthermore, foreign corporations will often target or concentrate on [2790] particular States, subjecting them to specific jurisdiction in those forums.

It must be remembered, however, that although this case and Asahi both involve foreign manufacturers, the undesirable consequences of Justice Brennan's approach are no less significant for domestic producers. The owner of a small Florida farm might sell crops to a large nearby distributor, for example, who might then distribute them to grocers across the country. If foreseeability were the controlling criterion, the farmer could be sued in Alaska or any number of other States' courts without ever leaving town. And the issue of foreseeability may itself be contested so that significant expenses are incurred just on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Jurisdictional rules should avoid these costs whenever possible.

The conclusion that the authority to subject a defendant to judgment depends on purposeful availment, consistent with Justice O'Connor's opinion in Asahi, does not by itself resolve many difficult questions of jurisdiction that will arise in particular cases. The defendant's conduct and the economic realities of the market the defendant seeks to serve will differ across cases, and judicial exposition will, in common-law fashion, clarify the contours of that principle.

III

In this case, petitioner directed marketing and sales efforts at the United States. It may be that, assuming it were otherwise empowered to legislate on the subject, the Congress could authorize the exercise of jurisdiction in appropriate courts. That circumstance is not presented in this case, however, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate to address here any constitutional concerns that might be attendant to that exercise of power. See Asahi, 480 U.S., at 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, n. Nor is it necessary to determine what substantive law might apply were Congress to authorize jurisdiction in a federal court in New Jersey. See Hanson, 357 U.S., at 254, 78 S.Ct. 1228 ("The issue is personal jurisdiction, not choice of law"). A sovereign's legislative authority to regulate conduct may present considerations different from those presented by its authority to subject a defendant to judgment in its courts. Here the question concerns the authority of a New Jersey state court to exercise jurisdiction, so it is petitioner's purposeful contacts with New Jersey, not with the United States, that alone are relevant.

Respondent has not established that J. McIntyre engaged in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey. Recall that respondent's claim of jurisdiction centers on three facts: The distributor agreed to sell J. McIntyre's machines in the United States; J. McIntyre officials attended trade shows in several States but not in New Jersey; and up to four machines ended up in New Jersey. The British manufacturer had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. Indeed, after discovery the trial court found that the "defendant does not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the machine in question ending up in this state." App. to Pet. for Cert. 130a. These facts may reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market.

It is notable that the New Jersey Supreme Court appears to agree, for it could "not find that J. McIntyre had a presence or minimum contacts in this State—in any jurisprudential sense—that would justify a New Jersey court to exercise jurisdiction in this case." 201 N.J., at 61, 987 A.2d, at 582. The court nonetheless held that petitioner [2791] could be sued in New Jersey based on a "stream-of-commerce theory of jurisdiction." Ibid. As discussed, however, the stream-of-commerce metaphor cannot supersede either the mandate of the Due Process Clause or the limits on judicial authority that Clause ensures. The New Jersey Supreme Court also cited "significant policy reasons" to justify its holding, including the State's "strong interest in protecting its citizens from defective products." Id., at 75, 987 A.2d, at 590. That interest is doubtless strong, but the Constitution commands restraint before discarding liberty in the name of expediency.

* * *

Due process protects petitioner's right to be subject only to lawful authority. At no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws. New Jersey is without power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of J. McIntyre, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The contrary judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is

Reversed.

Justice BREYER, with whom Justice ALITO joins, concurring in the judgment.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted a broad understanding of the scope of personal jurisdiction based on its view that "[t]he increasingly fast-paced globalization of the world economy has removed national borders as barriers to trade." Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 52, 987 A.2d 575, 577 (2010). I do not doubt that there have been many recent changes in commerce and communication, many of which are not anticipated by our precedents. But this case does not present any of those issues. So I think it unwise to announce a rule of broad applicability without full consideration of the modern-day consequences.

In my view, the outcome of this case is determined by our precedents. Based on the facts found by the New Jersey courts, respondent Robert Nicastro failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that it was constitutionally proper to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (British Manufacturer), a British firm that manufactures scrap-metal machines in Great Britain and sells them through an independent distributor in the United States (American Distributor). On that basis, I agree with the plurality that the contrary judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey should be reversed.

I

In asserting jurisdiction over the British Manufacturer, the Supreme Court of New Jersey relied most heavily on three primary facts as providing constitutionally sufficient "contacts" with New Jersey, thereby making it fundamentally fair to hale the British Manufacturer before its courts: (1) The American Distributor on one occasion sold and shipped one machine to a New Jersey customer, namely, Mr. Nicastro's employer, Mr. Curcio; (2) the British Manufacturer permitted, indeed wanted, its independent American Distributor to sell its machines to anyone in America willing to buy them; and (3) representatives of the British Manufacturer attended trade shows in "such cities as Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando, San Diego, and San Francisco." Id., at 54-55, 987 A.2d, at 578-579. In my view, these facts do not provide contacts between the British firm and the State of New Jersey constitutionally sufficient to support New Jersey's assertion of jurisdiction in this case.

[2792] None of our precedents finds that a single isolated sale, even if accompanied by the kind of sales effort indicated here, is sufficient. Rather, this Court's previous holdings suggest the contrary. The Court has held that a single sale to a customer who takes an accident-causing product to a different State (where the accident takes place) is not a sufficient basis for asserting jurisdiction. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). And the Court, in separate opinions, has strongly suggested that a single sale of a product in a State does not constitute an adequate basis for asserting jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, even if that defendant places his goods in the stream of commerce, fully aware (and hoping) that such a sale will take place. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 111, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (requiring "something more" than simply placing "a product into the stream of commerce," even if defendant is "awar[e]" that the stream "may or will sweep the product into the forum State"); id., at 117, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (jurisdiction should lie where a sale in a State is part of "the regular and anticipated flow" of commerce into the State, but not where that sale is only an "edd[y]," i.e., an isolated occurrence); id., at 122, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (indicating that "the volume, the value, and the hazardous character" of a good may affect the jurisdictional inquiry and emphasizing Asahi's "regular course of dealing").

Here, the relevant facts found by the New Jersey Supreme Court show no "regular... flow" or "regular course" of sales in New Jersey; and there is no "something more," such as special state-related design, advertising, advice, marketing, or anything else. Mr. Nicastro, who here bears the burden of proving jurisdiction, has shown no specific effort by the British Manufacturer to sell in New Jersey. He has introduced no list of potential New Jersey customers who might, for example, have regularly attended trade shows. And he has not otherwise shown that the British Manufacturer "purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities" within New Jersey, or that it delivered its goods in the stream of commerce "with the expectation that they will be purchased" by New Jersey users. World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 297-298, 100 S.Ct. 559 (internal quotation marks omitted).

There may well have been other facts that Mr. Nicastro could have demonstrated in support of jurisdiction. And the dissent considers some of those facts. See post, at 2795-2796 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.) (describing the size and scope of New Jersey's scrap-metal business). But the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and here I would take the facts precisely as the New Jersey Supreme Court stated them. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 709, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982); Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 164 N.J. 38, 71, 751 A.2d 538, 557 (2000); see 201 N.J., at 54-56, 987 A.2d, at 578-579; App. to Pet. for Cert. 128a-137a (trial court's "reasoning and finding(s)").

Accordingly, on the record present here, resolving this case requires no more than adhering to our precedents.

II

I would not go further. Because the incident at issue in this case does not implicate modern concerns, and because [2793] the factual record leaves many open questions, this is an unsuitable vehicle for making broad pronouncements that refashion basic jurisdictional rules.

A

The plurality seems to state strict rules that limit jurisdiction where a defendant does not "inten[d] to submit to the power of a sovereign" and cannot "be said to have targeted the forum." Ante, at 2788. But what do those standards mean when a company targets the world by selling products from its Web site? And does it matter if, instead of shipping the products directly, a company consigns the products through an intermediary (say, Amazon.com) who then receives and fulfills the orders? And what if the company markets its products through popup advertisements that it knows will be viewed in a forum? Those issues have serious commercial consequences but are totally absent in this case.

B

But though I do not agree with the plurality's seemingly strict no-jurisdiction rule, I am not persuaded by the absolute approach adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court and urged by respondent and his amici. Under that view, a producer is subject to jurisdiction for a products-liability action so long as it "knows or reasonably should know that its products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states." 201 N.J., at 76-77, 987 A.2d, at 592 (emphasis added). In the context of this case, I cannot agree.

For one thing, to adopt this view would abandon the heretofore accepted inquiry of whether, focusing upon the relationship between "the defendant, the forum, and the litigation," it is fair, in light of the defendant's contacts with that forum, to subject the defendant to suit there. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (emphasis added). It would ordinarily rest jurisdiction instead upon no more than the occurrence of a product-based accident in the forum State. But this Court has rejected the notion that a defendant's amenability to suit "travel[s] with the chattel." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S., at 296, 100 S.Ct. 559.

For another, I cannot reconcile so automatic a rule with the constitutional demand for "minimum contacts" and "purposefu[l] avail[ment]," each of which rest upon a particular notion of defendant-focused fairness. Id., at 291, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559 (internal quotation marks omitted). A rule like the New Jersey Supreme Court's would permit every State to assert jurisdiction in a products-liability suit against any domestic manufacturer who sells its products (made anywhere in the United States) to a national distributor, no matter how large or small the manufacturer, no matter how distant the forum, and no matter how few the number of items that end up in the particular forum at issue. What might appear fair in the case of a large manufacturer which specifically seeks, or expects, an equal-sized distributor to sell its product in a distant State might seem unfair in the case of a small manufacturer (say, an Appalachian potter) who sells his product (cups and saucers) exclusively to a large distributor, who resells a single item (a coffee mug) to a buyer from a distant State (Hawaii). I know too little about the range of these or in-between possibilities to abandon in favor of the more absolute rule what has previously been this Court's less absolute approach.

Further, the fact that the defendant is a foreign, rather than a domestic, manufacturer makes the basic fairness of an absolute [2794] rule yet more uncertain. I am again less certain than is the New Jersey Supreme Court that the nature of international commerce has changed so significantly as to require a new approach to personal jurisdiction.

It may be that a larger firm can readily "alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the State." World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559. But manufacturers come in many shapes and sizes. It may be fundamentally unfair to require a small Egyptian shirt maker, a Brazilian manufacturing cooperative, or a Kenyan coffee farmer, selling its products through international distributors, to respond to products-liability tort suits in virtually every State in the United States, even those in respect to which the foreign firm has no connection at all but the sale of a single (allegedly defective) good. And a rule like the New Jersey Supreme Court suggests would require every product manufacturer, large or small, selling to American distributors to understand not only the tort law of every State, but also the wide variance in the way courts within different States apply that law. See, e.g., Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001, p. 11 (reporting percentage of plaintiff winners in tort trials among 46 populous counties, ranging from 17.9% (Worcester, Mass.) to 69.1% (Milwaukee, Wis.)).

C

At a minimum, I would not work such a change to the law in the way either the plurality or the New Jersey Supreme Court suggests without a better understanding of the relevant contemporary commercial circumstances. Insofar as such considerations are relevant to any change in present law, they might be presented in a case (unlike the present one) in which the Solicitor General participates. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, O.T.2010, No. 10-76, pp. 20-22 (Government declining invitation at oral argument to give its views with respect to issues in this case).

This case presents no such occasion, and so I again reiterate that I would adhere strictly to our precedents and the limited facts found by the New Jersey Supreme Court. And on those grounds, I do not think we can find jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, though I agree with the plurality as to the outcome of this case, I concur only in the judgment of that opinion and not its reasoning.

Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice SOTOMAYOR and Justice KAGAN join, dissenting.

A foreign industrialist seeks to develop a market in the United States for machines it manufactures. It hopes to derive substantial revenue from sales it makes to United States purchasers. Where in the United States buyers reside does not matter to this manufacturer. Its goal is simply to sell as much as it can, wherever it can. It excludes no region or State from the market it wishes to reach. But, all things considered, it prefers to avoid products liability litigation in the United States. To that end, it engages a U.S. distributor to ship its machines stateside. Has it succeeded in escaping personal jurisdiction in a State where one of its products is sold and causes injury or even death to a local user?

Under this Court's pathmarking precedent in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), and subsequent decisions, one would expect the answer to be unequivocally, [2795] "No." But instead, six Justices of this Court, in divergent opinions, tell us that the manufacturer has avoided the jurisdiction of our state courts, except perhaps in States where its products are sold in sizeable quantities. Inconceivable as it may have seemed yesterday, the splintered majority today "turn[s] the clock back to the days before modern long-arm statutes when a manufacturer, to avoid being haled into court where a user is injured, need only Pilate-like wash its hands of a product by having independent distributors market it." Weintraub, A Map Out of the Personal Jurisdiction Labyrinth, 28 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 531, 555 (1995).

I

On October 11, 2001, a three-ton metal shearing machine severed four fingers on Robert Nicastro's right hand. Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 53, 987 A.2d 575, 577 (2010); see App. 6a-8a (Complaint). Alleging that the machine was a dangerous product defectively made, Nicastro sought compensation from the machine's manufacturer, J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. (McIntyre UK). Established in 1872 as a United Kingdom corporation, and headquartered in Nottingham, England, McIntyre UK "designs, develops and manufactures a complete range of equipment for metal recycling." Id., at 22a, 33a. The company's product line, as advertised on McIntyre UK's Web site, includes "metal shears, balers, cable and can recycling equipment, furnaces, casting equipment and ... the world's best aluminium dross processing and cooling system." Id., at 31a. McIntyre UK holds both United States and European patents on its technology. 201 N.J., at 55, 987 A.2d, at 579; App. 36a.

The machine that injured Nicastro, a "McIntyre Model 640 Shear," sold in the United States for $24,900 in 1995, id., at 43a, and features a "massive cutting capacity," id., at 44a. According to McIntyre UK's product brochure, the machine is "use[d] throughout the [w]orld." Ibid. McIntyre UK represented in the brochure that, by "incorporat[ing] off-the-shelf hydraulic parts from suppliers with international sales outlets," the 640 Shear's design guarantees serviceability "wherever [its customers] may be based." Ibid. The instruction manual advises "owner[s] and operators of a 640 Shear [to] make themselves aware of [applicable health and safety regulations]," including "the American National Standards Institute Regulations (USA) for the use of Scrap Metal Processing Equipment." Id., at 46a.

Nicastro operated the 640 Shear in the course of his employment at Curcio Scrap Metal (CSM) in Saddle Brook, New Jersey. Id., at 7a, 43a. "New Jersey has long been a hotbed of scrap-metal businesses...." See Drake, The Scrap-Heap Rollup Hits New Jersey, Business News New Jersey, June 1, 1998, p. 1. In 2008, New Jersey recycling facilities processed 2,013,730 tons of scrap iron, steel, aluminum, and other metals—more than any other State—outpacing Kentucky, its nearest competitor, by nearly 30 percent. Von Haaren, Themelis, & Goldstein, The State of Garbage in America, BioCycle, Oct. 2010, p. 19.

CSM's owner, Frank Curcio, "first heard of [McIntyre UK's] machine while attending an Institute of Scrap Metal Industries [(ISRI)] convention in Las Vegas in 1994 or 1995, where [McIntyre UK] was an exhibitor." App. 78a. ISRI "presents the world's largest scrap recycling industry trade show each year." Id., at 47a. The event attracts "owners [and] managers of scrap processing companies" and others "interested in seeing—and purchasing—new equipment." Id., at 48a-49a. [2796] According to ISRI, more than 3,000 potential buyers of scrap processing and recycling equipment attend its annual conventions, "primarily because th[e] exposition provides them with the most comprehensive industry-related shopping experience concentrated in a single, convenient location." Id., at 47a. Exhibitors who are ISRI members pay $3,000 for 10' x 10' booth space. Id., at 48a-49a.^[1]

McIntyre UK representatives attended every ISRI convention from 1990 through 2005. Id., at 114a-115a. These annual expositions were held in diverse venues across the United States; in addition to Las Vegas, conventions were held 1990-2005 in New Orleans, Orlando, San Antonio, and San Francisco. Ibid. McIntyre UK's president, Michael Pownall, regularly attended ISRI conventions. Ibid. He attended ISRI's Las Vegas convention the year CSM's owner first learned of, and saw, the 640 Shear. Id., at 78a-79a, 115a. McIntyre UK exhibited its products at ISRI trade shows, the company acknowledged, hoping to reach "anyone interested in the machine from anywhere in the United States." Id., at 161a.

Although McIntyre UK's U.S. sales figures are not in the record, it appears that for several years in the 1990's, earnings from sales of McIntyre UK products in the United States "ha[d] been good" in comparison to "the rest of the world." Id., at 136a (Letter from Sally Johnson, McIntyre UK's Managing Director, to Gary and Mary Gaither, officers of McIntyre UK's exclusive distributor in the United States (Jan. 13, 1999)). In response to interrogatories, McIntyre UK stated that its commissioning engineer had installed the company's equipment in several States—Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia, and Washington. Id., at 119a.

From at least 1995 until 2001, McIntyre UK retained an Ohio-based company, McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd. (McIntyre America), "as its exclusive distributor for the entire United States." Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 399 N.J.Super. 539, 558, 945 A.2d 92, 104 (App. 2008).^[2] Though similarly named, the two companies were separate and independent entities with "no commonality of ownership or management." Id., at 545, 945 A.2d, at 95. In invoices and other written communications, McIntyre America described itself as McIntyre UK's national distributor, "America's Link" to "Quality Metal Processing Equipment" from England. App. 43a, 78a.

In a November 23, 1999 letter to McIntyre America, McIntyre UK's president spoke plainly about the manufacturer's objective in authorizing the exclusive distributorship: "All we wish to do is sell our products in the [United] States—and get paid!" Id., at 134a. Notably, McIntyre America was concerned about U.S. litigation involving McIntyre UK products, in which the distributor had been named as a defendant. McIntyre UK counseled McIntyre America to respond personally to the litigation, but reassured its distributor that "the product was built and designed by McIntyre Machinery in the UK and the buck stops here—if there's something [2797] wrong with the machine." Id., at 129a-130a. Answering jurisdictional interrogatories, McIntyre UK stated that it had been named as a defendant in lawsuits in Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and West Virginia. Id., at 98a, 108a. And in correspondence with McIntyre America, McIntyre UK noted that the manufacturer had products liability insurance coverage. Id., at 129a.

Over the years, McIntyre America distributed several McIntyre UK products to U.S. customers, including, in addition to the 640 Shear, McIntyre UK's "Niagara" and "Tardis" systems, wire strippers, and can machines. Id., at 123a-128a. In promoting McIntyre UK's products at conventions and demonstration sites and in trade journal advertisements, McIntyre America looked to McIntyre UK for direction and guidance. Ibid. To achieve McIntyre UK's objective, i.e., "to sell [its] machines to customers throughout the United States," 399 N.J.Super., at 548, 945 A.2d, at 97, "the two companies [were acting] closely in concert with each other," ibid. McIntyre UK never instructed its distributor to avoid certain States or regions of the country; rather, as just noted, the manufacturer engaged McIntyre America to attract customers "from anywhere in the United States." App. 161a.

In sum, McIntyre UK's regular attendance and exhibitions at ISRI conventions was surely a purposeful step to reach customers for its products "anywhere in the United States." At least as purposeful was McIntyre UK's engagement of McIntyre America as the conduit for sales of McIntyre UK's machines to buyers "throughout the United States." Given McIntyre UK's endeavors to reach and profit from the United States market as a whole, Nicastro's suit, I would hold, has been brought in a forum entirely appropriate for the adjudication of his claim. He alleges that McIntyre UK's shear machine was defectively designed or manufactured and, as a result, caused injury to him at his workplace. The machine arrived in Nicastro's New Jersey workplace not randomly or fortuitously, but as a result of the U.S. connections and distribution system that McIntyre UK deliberately arranged.^[3] On what sensible view of the allocation of adjudicatory authority could the place of Nicastro's injury within the United States be deemed off limits for his products liability claim against a foreign manufacturer who targeted the United States (including all the States that constitute the Nation) as the territory it sought to develop?

II

A few points on which there should be no genuine debate bear statement at the outset. First, all agree, McIntyre UK surely is not subject to general (all-purpose) jurisdiction in New Jersey courts, for that foreign-country corporation is hardly "at home" in New Jersey. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, post, at 2850-2851, 2854-2857. The question, rather, is one of specific jurisdiction, which turns on an "affiliatio[n] [2798] between the forum and the underlying controversy." Goodyear Dunlop, post, at 2851 (quoting von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 1121, 1136 (1966) (hereinafter von Mehren & Trautman); internal quotation marks omitted); see also Goodyear Dunlop, post, at 2853-2854.

Second, no issue of the fair and reasonable allocation of adjudicatory authority among States of the United States is present in this case. New Jersey's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer whose dangerous product caused a workplace injury in New Jersey does not tread on the domain, or diminish the sovereignty, of any sister State. Indeed, among States of the United States, the State in which the injury occurred would seem most suitable for litigation of a products liability tort claim. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (if a manufacturer or distributor endeavors to develop a market for a product in several States, it is reasonable "to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective [product] has there been the source of injury"); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)-(b) (in federal-court suits, whether resting on diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, venue is proper in the judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred").

Third, the constitutional limits on a state court's adjudicatory authority derive from considerations of due process, not state sovereignty. As the Court clarified in Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982):

"The restriction on state sovereign power described in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. ... must be seen as ultimately a function of the individual liberty interest preserved by the Due Process Clause. That Clause is the only source of the personal jurisdiction requirement and the Clause itself makes no mention of federalism concerns. Furthermore, if the federalism concept operated as an independent restriction on the sovereign power of the court, it would not be possible to waive the personal jurisdiction requirement: Individual actions cannot change the powers of sovereignty, although the individual can subject himself to powers from which he may otherwise be protected." Id., at 703, n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 2099.

See also Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, and n. 20, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (recognizing that "the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States [is not] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction"). But see ante, at 2788 (plurality opinion) (asserting that "sovereign authority," not "fairness," is the "central concept" in determining personal jurisdiction).

Finally, in International Shoe itself, and decisions thereafter, the Court has made plain that legal fictions, notably "presence" and "implied consent," should be discarded, for they conceal the actual bases on which jurisdiction rests. See 326 U.S., at 316, 318, 66 S.Ct. 154; Hutchinson v. Chase & Gilbert, 45 F.2d 139, 141 (C.A.2 1930) (L.Hand, J.) ("nothing is gained by [resort to words that] concea[l] what we do"). "[T]he relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation" determines whether due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant, Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, and "fictions of implied consent" or "corporate presence" do not advance the proper inquiry, id., at 202, 97 S.Ct. 2569. See also Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 618, [2799] 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (plurality opinion) (International Shoe "cast ... aside" fictions of "consent" and "presence").

Whatever the state of academic debate over the role of consent in modern jurisdictional doctrines,^[4] the plurality's notion that consent is the animating concept draws no support from controlling decisions of this Court. Quite the contrary, the Court has explained, a forum can exercise jurisdiction when its contacts with the controversy are sufficient; invocation of a fictitious consent, the Court has repeatedly said, is unnecessary and unhelpful. See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (Due Process Clause permits "forum ... to assert specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who has not consented to suit there"); McGee v. International Life Ins.Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) ("[T]his Court [has] abandoned `consent,' `doing business,' and `presence' as the standard for measuring the extent of state judicial power over [out-of-state] corporations.").^[5]

III

This case is illustrative of marketing arrangements for sales in the United States common in today's commercial world.^[6] A foreign-country manufacturer engages a U.S. company to promote and distribute the manufacturer's products, not in any particular State, but anywhere and everywhere in the United States the distributor can attract purchasers. The product proves defective and injures a user in the State where the user lives or works. Often, as here, the manufacturer will have liability insurance covering personal injuries caused by its products. See Cupp, Redesigning Successor Liability, 1999 U. Ill. L.Rev. 845, 870-871 (noting the ready availability of products liability insurance for manufacturers and citing a study showing, "between 1986 and 1996, [such] insurance cost manufacturers, on average, only sixteen cents for each $100 of product sales"); App. 129-130.

[2800] When industrial accidents happen, a long-arm statute in the State where the injury occurs generally permits assertion of jurisdiction, upon giving proper notice, over the foreign manufacturer. For example, the State's statute might provide, as does New York's long-arm statute, for the "exercise [of] personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who ...

"commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, ... if he ... expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce." N.Y. Civ. Prac. Law Ann. § 302(a)(3)(ii) (West 2008).^[7]

Or, the State might simply provide, as New Jersey does, for the exercise of jurisdiction "consistent with due process of law." N.J. Ct. Rule 4:4-4(b)(1) (2011).^[8]

The modern approach to jurisdiction over corporations and other legal entities, ushered in by International Shoe, gave prime place to reason and fairness. Is it not fair and reasonable, given the mode of trading of which this case is an example, to require the international seller to defend at the place its products cause injury?^[9] Do not litigational convenience^[10] and choice-of-law considerations^[11] point in that direction? On what measure of reason and fairness can it be considered undue to require McIntyre UK to defend in New Jersey as an incident of its efforts to develop a market for its industrial machines anywhere and everywhere in the United States?^[12] Is not the burden on McIntyre [2801] UK to defend in New Jersey fair, i.e., a reasonable cost of transacting business internationally, in comparison to the burden on Nicastro to go to Nottingham, England to gain recompense for an injury he sustained using McIntyre's product at his workplace in Saddle Brook, New Jersey?

McIntyre UK dealt with the United States as a single market. Like most foreign manufacturers, it was concerned not with the prospect of suit in State X as opposed to State Y, but rather with its subjection to suit anywhere in the United States. See Hay, Judicial Jurisdiction Over Foreign-Country Corporate Defendants—Comments on Recent Case Law, 63 Ore. L.Rev. 431, 433 (1984) (hereinafter Hay). As a McIntyre UK officer wrote in an e-mail to McIntyre America: "American law—who needs it?!" App. 129a-130a (e-mail dated April 26, 1999 from Sally Johnson to Mary Gaither). If McIntyre UK is answerable in the United States at all, is it not "perfectly appropriate to permit the exercise of that jurisdiction. . . at the place of injury"? See Hay 435; Degnan & Kane, The Exercise of Jurisdiction Over and Enforcement of Judgments Against Alien Defendants, 39 Hastings L.J. 799, 813-815 (1988) (noting that "[i]n the international order," the State that counts is the United States, not its component States,^[13] and that the fair place of suit within the United States is essentially a question of venue).

In sum, McIntyre UK, by engaging McIntyre America to promote and sell its machines in the United States, "purposefully availed itself "of the United States market nationwide, not a market in a single State or a discrete collection of States. McIntyre UK thereby availed itself of the market of all States in which its products were sold by its exclusive distributor. "Th[e] `purposeful availment' requirement," this Court has explained, simply "ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of `random,' `fortuitous,' or `attenuated' contacts." Burger King, 471 U.S., at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Adjudicatory authority is appropriately exercised where "actions by the defendant himself" give rise to the affiliation with the forum. Ibid. How could McIntyre UK not have intended, by its actions targeting a national market, to sell products in the fourth largest destination for imports among all States of the United States and the largest scrap metal market? See supra, at 2795-2796, 2799, n. 6. But see ante, at 2790-2791 (plurality opinion) (manufacturer's purposeful efforts to sell its products nationwide are "not . . . relevant" to the personal jurisdiction inquiry).

Courts, both state and federal, confronting facts similar to those here, have rightly rejected the conclusion that a manufacturer selling its products across the USA may evade jurisdiction in any and all States, including the State where its defective product is distributed and causes injury. They have held, instead, that it would undermine principles of fundamental fairness to insulate the foreign manufacturer from accountability in court at the place within [2802] the United States where the manufacturer's products caused injury. See, e.g., Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 528, 544 (C.A.6 1993); A. Uberti & C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 573, 892 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1995).^[14]

IV

A

While this Court has not considered in any prior case the now-prevalent pattern presented here—a foreign-country manufacturer enlisting a U.S. distributor to develop a market in the United States for the manufacturer's products—none of the Court's decisions tug against the judgment made by the New Jersey Supreme Court. McIntyre contends otherwise, citing World-Wide Volkswagen, and Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987).

World-Wide Volkswagen concerned a New York car dealership that sold solely in the New York market, and a New York distributor who supplied retailers in three States only: New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. 444 U.S., at 289, 100 S.Ct. 559. New York residents had purchased an Audi from the New York dealer and were driving the new vehicle through Oklahoma en route to Arizona. On the road in Oklahoma, another car struck the Audi in the rear, causing a fire which severely burned the Audi's occupants. Id., at 288, 100 S.Ct. 559. Rejecting the Oklahoma courts' assertion of jurisdiction over the New York dealer and distributor, this Court observed that the defendants had done nothing to serve the market for cars in Oklahoma. Id., at 295-298, 100 S.Ct. 559. Jurisdiction, the Court held, could not be based on the customer's unilateral act of driving the vehicle to Oklahoma. Id., at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559; see Asahi, 480 U.S., at 109, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (World-Wide Volkswagen "rejected the assertion that a consumer's unilateral act of bringing the defendant's product into the forum State was a sufficient constitutional basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant").

Notably, the foreign manufacturer of the Audi in World-Wide Volkswagen did not object to the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts and the U.S. importer abandoned its initially stated objection. 444 U.S., at 288, and n. 3, 100 S.Ct. 559. And most relevant here, the Court's opinion indicates that an objection to jurisdiction by the manufacturer or national distributor would have been unavailing. To reiterate, the Court said in World-Wide Volkswagen that, when a manufacturer or distributor aims to sell its product to customers in several States, it is reasonable "to subject it to suit in [any] one of those States if its allegedly defective [product] has there been the source of injury." Id., at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559.

Asahi arose out of a motorcycle accident in California. Plaintiff, a California resident injured in the accident, sued the Taiwanese manufacturer of the motorcycle's tire tubes, claiming that defects in its product caused the accident. The tube manufacturer cross-claimed against Asahi, the Japanese maker of the valve assembly, and Asahi contested the California courts' jurisdiction. By the time the case reached this Court, the injured plaintiff had settled his case and only the indemnity claim by the Taiwanese company against the Japanese valve-assembly manufacturer remained.

The decision was not a close call. The Court had before it a foreign plaintiff, the Taiwanese manufacturer, and a foreign defendant, [2803] the Japanese valve-assembly maker, and the indemnification dispute concerned a transaction between those parties that occurred abroad. All agreed on the bottom line: The Japanese valve-assembly manufacturer was not reasonably brought into the California courts to litigate a dispute with another foreign party over a transaction that took place outside the United States.

Given the confines of the controversy, the dueling opinions of Justice Brennan and Justice O'Connor were hardly necessary. How the Court would have "estimate[d]. . . the inconveniences," see International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154 (internal quotation marks omitted), had the injured Californian originally sued Asahi is a debatable question. Would this Court have given the same weight to the burdens on the foreign defendant had those been counterbalanced by the burdens litigating in Japan imposed on the local California plaintiff? Cf. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (a plaintiff's contacts with the forum "may be so manifold as to permit jurisdiction when it would not exist in their absence").

In any event, Asahi, unlike McIntyre UK, did not itself seek out customers in the United States, it engaged no distributor to promote its wares here, it appeared at no tradeshows in the United States, and, of course, it had no Web site advertising its products to the world. Moreover, Asahi was a component-part manufacturer with "little control over the final destination of its products once they were delivered into the stream of commerce." A. Uberti, 181 Ariz., at 572, 892 P.2d, at 1361. It was important to the Court in Asahi that "those who use Asahi components in their final products, and sell those products in California, [would be] subject to the application of California tort law." 480 U.S., at 115, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (majority opinion). To hold that Asahi controls this case would, to put it bluntly, be dead wrong.^[15]

B

The Court's judgment also puts United States plaintiffs at a disadvantage in comparison to similarly situated complainants elsewhere in the world. Of particular note, within the European Union, in which the United Kingdom is a participant, the jurisdiction New Jersey would have exercised is not at all exceptional. The European Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments provides for the exercise of specific jurisdiction "in matters relating to tort . . . in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred." Council Reg. 44/2001, Art. 5, 2001 O.J. (L.12) 4.^[16] The European Court of Justice has interpreted this prescription to authorize jurisdiction either where the harmful act occurred or at the [2804] place of injury. See Handelskwekerij G.J. Bier B.V. v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S. A., 1976 E.C.R. 1735, 1748-1749.^[17]

V

The commentators who gave names to what we now call "general jurisdiction" and "specific jurisdiction" anticipated that when the latter achieves its full growth, considerations of litigational convenience and the respective situations of the parties would determine when it is appropriate to subject a defendant to trial in the plaintiff's community. See von Mehren & Trautman 1166-1179. Litigational considerations include "the convenience of witnesses and the ease of ascertaining the governing law." Id., at 1168-1169. As to the parties, courts would differently appraise two situations: (1) cases involving a substantially local plaintiff, like Nicastro, injured by the activity of a defendant engaged in interstate or international trade; and (2) cases in which the defendant is a natural or legal person whose economic activities and legal involvements are largely home-based, i.e., entities without designs to gain substantial revenue from sales in distant markets. See id., at 1167-1169.^[18] As the attached appendix of illustrative cases indicates, courts presented with von Mehren and Trautman's first scenario—a local plaintiff injured by the activity of a manufacturer seeking to exploit a multistate or global market—have repeatedly confirmed that jurisdiction is appropriately exercised by courts of the place where the product was sold and caused injury.

* * *

For the reasons stated, I would hold McIntyre UK answerable in New Jersey for the harm Nicastro suffered at his workplace in that State using McIntyre UK's shearing machine. While I dissent from the Court's judgment, I take heart that the plurality opinion does not speak for the Court, for that opinion would take a giant step away from the "notions of fair play and substantial justice" underlying International Shoe. 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (internal quotation marks omitted).

APPENDIX

Illustrative cases upholding exercise of personal jurisdiction over an alien or out-of-state corporation that, through a distributor, targeted a national market, including any and all States:^[19]

Clune v. Alimak AB, 233 F.3d 538, 544 (C.A.8 2000) (wrongful-death action against the Swedish manufacturer of a construction hoist that allegedly caused a workplace death in Missouri; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Missouri, the Eighth Circuit stated: "Although we can imagine a case where a foreign manufacturer selects discrete regional distributors for the purpose of penetrating the markets in some states to the exclusion of others, that situation is not before us." In this case, the foreign manufacturer had "successfully employ[ed] one or two distributors to cover the [entire] United States[,] [2805] intend[ing] to reap the benefit of sales in every state where those distributors market." Were the court to conclude that the manufacturer "did not intend its products to flow into Missouri," the court "would be bound to the conclusion that the [manufacturer] did not intend its products to flow into any of the United States.").

Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc., 175 F.3d 236, 242-244 (C.A.2 1999) (products liability action against the Japanese manufacturer of an allegedly defective stamping press that caused a workplace injury in New York; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in New York, the Second Circuit stated that an "exclusive sales rights agreement" between the Japanese manufacturer and a Pennsylvania distributor "contemplates that [the distributor] will sell [the manufacturer's] machines in North America and throughout the world, serv[ing] as evidence of [the manufacturer's] attempt to serve the New York market, albeit indirectly").

Barone v. Rich Bros. Interstate Display Fireworks Co., 25 F.3d 610, 613-615 (C.A.8 1994) (products liability suit against a Japanese fireworks manufacturer for injuries sustained in Nebraska; Eighth Circuit held the manufacturer amenable to suit in Nebraska, although the manufacturer had no distributor or sales agents in that State, did not advertise in Nebraska, and claimed it was unaware that its distributors sold products there; Court of Appeals stated: "In this age of NAFTA and GATT, one can expect further globalization of commerce, and it is only reasonable for companies that distribute allegedly defective products through regional distributors in this country to anticipate being haled into court by plaintiffs in their home states.").

Tobin v. Astra Pharmaceutical Prods., Inc., 993 F.2d 528, 544 (C.A.6 1993) (products liability action against the Dutch pharmaceutical manufacturer of a drug alleged to have caused Kentucky resident's heart disease; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Kentucky, the Sixth Circuit reasoned: "[Defendant] argues that it has done nothing in particular to purposefully avail itself of the Kentucky market as distinguished from any other state in the union. If we were to accept defendant's argument on this point, a foreign manufacturer could insulate itself from liability in each of the fifty states simply by using an independent national distributor to market its products.").

Hedrick v. Daiko Shoji Co., 715 F.2d 1355, 1358 (C.A.9 1983) (products liability suit arising from injuries plaintiff sustained in Oregon caused by an allegedly defective wire-rope splice manufactured in Japan; holding the Japanese manufacturer amenable to suit in Oregon, the Ninth Circuit noted that the manufacturer "performed a forum-related act when it produced a splice that it knew was destined for ocean-going vessels serving United States ports, including those of Oregon").

Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 200 (C.A.5 1980) (products liability action stemming from an injury plaintiff sustained in Texas when using a cigarette lighter made in Japan; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Texas, the Fifth Circuit noted that the manufacturer "had every reason to believe its product would be sold to a nation-wide market, that is, in any or all states").

Stokes v. L. Geismar, S.A., 815 F.Supp. 904, 907 (E.D.Va.1993), aff'd on other grounds, 16 F.3d 411 (C.A.4 1994) (action by worker injured in Virginia while using a rail-cutting saw manufactured by a French corporation; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Virginia, the District Court noted that there was "no evidence of any attempt . . . to limit th[e] U.S. marketing strategy to avoid Virginia or any other particular state").

[2806] Felty v. Conaway Processing Equipment Co., 738 F.Supp. 917, 919-920 (E.D.Pa.1990) (personal injury suit against the Dutch manufacturer of a poultry processing machine that allegedly caused injury in Pennsylvania; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Pennsylvania, the District Court observed that the manufacturer "clearly and purposefully used [distributors] to deal in the international market for poultry processing equipment" and was "well aware that its equipment was being sold for use in the United States, including Pennsylvania").

Scanlan v. Norma Projektil Fabrik, 345 F.Supp. 292, 293 (D.Mont.1972) (products liability action occasioned by defect in ammunition used while hunting in Montana; plaintiff sued the Swedish ammunition manufacturer; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in Montana, the District Court noted that the distributor intended "a nationwide product distribution").

Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635, 654-655 (Ala.2009) (wrongful-death action arising out of an automobile accident in Alabama; plaintiff sued the Korean manufacturer of an allegedly defective seatbelt; Supreme Court of Alabama held the manufacturer amenable to suit in Alabama, although the manufacturer had supplied its seatbelts to the car maker in Korea and "maintain[ed] there [was] no evidence . . . showing that it knew its products were being marketed in Alabama").

A. Uberti & C. v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 573, 892 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1995) (wrongful-death action against the Italian manufacturer of an allegedly defective handgun that caused child's death in Arizona; Arizona Supreme Court stated: "[F]or all this record shows, Defendant never heard of Arizona. This raises the following question: Having shown that the gun was knowingly designed for and exported to exploit the market of the United States or western United States, must Plaintiffs additionally show that Defendant had the specific intent to market the gun in Arizona, or is it enough to show that Defendant intended to market it in any state, group of states, or all states? We conclude that only the latter is necessary.").

Hill by Hill v. Showa Denko, K. K., 188 W.Va. 654, 661, 425 S.E.2d 609, 616 (1992) (products liability suit against the Japanese manufacturer of a sleep aid alleged to have caused West Virginia plaintiff's blood disorder; holding the manufacturer amenable to suit in West Virginia, that State's Supreme Court noted that the manufacturer had profited from sales in the United States and considered it unfair to "requir[e] the plaintiff to travel to Japan to litigate th[e] case").

[1] New Jersey is home to nearly 100 ISRI members. See Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., Member Directory, http:// www.isri.org/ imis15_prod/core/directory.aspx (as visited June 24, 2011, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).

[2] McIntyre America filed for bankruptcy in 2001, is no longer operating, and has not participated in this lawsuit. Brief for Petitioner 3. After "the demise of ... McIntyre America," McIntyre UK authorized a Texas-based company to serve as exclusive United States distributor of McIntyre UK shears. App. 52a-53a.

[3] McIntyre UK resisted Nicastro's efforts to determine whether other McIntyre machines had been sold to New Jersey customers. See id., at 100a-101a. McIntyre did allow that McIntyre America "may have resold products it purchased from [McIntyre UK] to a buyer in New Jersey," id., at 117a, but said it kept no record of the ultimate destination of machines it shipped to its distributor, ibid. A private investigator engaged by Nicastro found at least one McIntyre UK machine, of unspecified type, in use in New Jersey. Id., at 140a-144a. But McIntyre UK objected that the investigator's report was "unsworn and based upon hearsay." Reply Brief 10. Moreover, McIntyre UK maintained, no evidence showed that the machine the investigator found in New Jersey had been "sold into [that State]." Ibid.

[4] Compare Brilmayer, Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law, 98 Yale L.J. 1277, 1304-1306 (1989) (hereinafter Brilmayer) (criticizing as circular jurisdictional theories founded on "consent" or "[s]ubmission to state authority"), Perdue, Personal Jurisdiction and the Beetle in the Box, 32 Boston College L.Rev. 529, 536-544 (1991) (same), with Trangsrud, The Federal Common Law of Personal Jurisdiction, 57 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 849, 884-885 (1989) (endorsing a consent-based doctrine of personal jurisdiction), Epstein, Consent, Not Power, as the Basis of Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 1, 2, 30-32 (urging that "the consent principle neatly explains the dynamics of many of our jurisdictional doctrines," but recognizing that in tort cases, the victim ordinarily should be able to sue in the place where the harm occurred).

[5] But see ante, at 2786-2789 (plurality opinion) (maintaining that a forum may be fair and reasonable, based on its links to the episode in suit, yet off limits because the defendant has not submitted to the State's authority). The plurality's notion that jurisdiction over foreign corporations depends upon the defendant's "submission," ante, at 2787-2788, seems scarcely different from the long-discredited fiction of implied consent. It bears emphasis that a majority of this Court's members do not share the plurality's view.

[6] Last year, the United States imported nearly 2 trillion dollars in foreign goods. Census Bureau, U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services (Apr.2011), p. 1, http://www. census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/ current_press_release/ft900.pdf (as visited June 24, 2011, and in Clerk of Court's case file). Capital goods, such as the metal shear machine that injured Nicastro, accounted for almost 450 billion dollars in imports for 2010. Id., at 6. New Jersey is the fourth-largest destination for manufactured commodities imported into the United States, after California, Texas, and New York. Id., FT-900 Supplement, p. 3.

[7] This provision was modeled in part on the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act. See N.Y. Legislative Doc. 90, Judicial Conference of the State of New York, 11th Annual Report 132-147 (1966). Connecticut's long-arm statute also uses the "derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" formulation. See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-59b(a) (2011).

[8] State long-arm provisions allow the exercise of jurisdiction subject only to a due process limitation in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1068, pp. 577-578, n. 12 (3d ed.2002).

[9] The plurality objects to a jurisdictional approach "divorced from traditional practice." Ante, at 2787. But "the fundamental transformation of our national economy," this Court has recognized, warrants enlargement of "the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents." McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957).

[10] See von Mehren & Trautman 1167 ("[C]onsiderations of litigational convenience, particularly with respect to the taking of evidence, tend in accident cases to point insistently to the community in which the accident occurred.").

[11] Historically, "tort cases were governed by the place where the last act giving rise to a claim occurred—that is, the place of injury." Brilmayer 1291-1292. Even as many jurisdictions have modified the traditional rule of lex loci delicti, the location of injury continues to hold sway in choice-of-law analysis in tort cases. See generally Whytock, Myth of Mess? International Choice of Law in Action, 84 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 719 (2009).

[12] The plurality suggests that the Due Process Clause might permit a federal district court in New Jersey, sitting in diversity and applying New Jersey law, to adjudicate McIntyre UK's liability to Nicastro. See ante, at 2790-2791. In other words, McIntyre UK might be compelled to bear the burden of traveling to New Jersey and defending itself there under New Jersey's products liability law, but would be entitled to federal adjudication of Nicastro's state-law claim. I see no basis in the Due Process Clause for such a curious limitation.

[13] "For purposes of international law and foreign relations, the separate identities of individual states of the Union are generally irrelevant." Born, Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases, 17 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1, 36 (1987). See also Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 63, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941) ("For local interests the several States of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 421, Comment f, p. 307 (1986) ("International law . . . does not concern itself with the allocation of jurisdiction among domestic courts within a [nation,] for example, between national and local courts in a federal system.").

[14] For a more complete set of examples, see Appendix, infra, at 2804-2806.

[15] The plurality notes the low volume of sales in New Jersey, ante, at 2786, 2790-2791. A $24,900 shearing machine, however, is unlikely to sell in bulk worldwide, much less in any given State. By dollar value, the price of a single machine represents a significant sale. Had a manufacturer sold in New Jersey $24,900 worth of flannel shirts, see Nelson v. Park Industries, Inc., 717 F.2d 1120 (C.A.7 1983), cigarette lighters, see Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191 (C.A.5 1980), or wire-rope splices, see Hedrick v. Daiko Shoji Co., 715 F.2d 1355 (C.A.9 1983), the Court would presumably find the defendant amenable to suit in that State.

[16] The Regulation replaced the "European" or "Brussels" Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, entered into in 1968 by the original Common Market member states. In the interim, the Lugano Convention "extended the Brussels Convention scheme to [European Free Trade Association] countries." Clermont & Palmer, Exorbitant Jurisdiction, 58 Me. L.Rev. 474, 491, n. 82 (2006).

[17] For a concise comparison of the European regime and this Court's decisions, see Weintraub, A Map Out of the Personal Jurisdiction Labyrinth, 28 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 531, 550-554 (1995).

[18] Assigning weight to the local or international stage on which the parties operate would, to a considerable extent, answer the concerns expressed by Justice BREYER. See ante, at 2793-2794 (opinion concurring in judgment).

[19] The listed cases are by no means exhaustive of decisions fitting this pattern. For additional citations, see Brief for Public Citizen, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 16, n. 5.

134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014)

Anthony WALDEN, Petitioner
v.
Gina FIORE et al.

[1118] Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Melissa Arbus Sherry, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Thomas C. Goldstein, for the respondents.

Timothy H. Lee, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Counsel of Record, Daniel S. Epps, Carolyn M. Sweeney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Thomas C. Goldstein, Counsel of Record, Kevin K. Russell, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Washington, DC, Robert A. Nersesian, Thea Sankiewicz, Nersesian & Sankiewicz, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents.

[1119] Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case asks us to decide whether a court in Nevada may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in Georgia would delay the return of funds to plaintiffs with connections to Nevada. Because the defendant had no other contacts with Nevada, and because a plaintiff's contacts with the forum State cannot be "decisive in determining whether the defendant's due process rights are violated," Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332, 100 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980), we hold that the court in Nevada may not exercise personal jurisdiction under these circumstances.

I

Petitioner Anthony Walden serves as a police officer for the city of Covington, Georgia. In August 2006, petitioner was working at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport as a deputized agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As part of a task force, petitioner conducted investigative stops and other law enforcement functions in support of the DEA's airport drug interdiction program.

On August 8, 2006, Transportation Security Administration agents searched respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson and their carry-on bags at the San Juan airport in Puerto Rico. They found almost $97,000 in cash. Fiore explained to DEA agents in San Juan that she and Gipson had been gambling at a casino known as the El San Juan, and that they had residences in both California and Nevada (though they provided only California identification). After respondents were cleared for departure, a law enforcement official at the San Juan airport notified petitioner's task force in Atlanta that respondents had boarded a plane for Atlanta, where they planned to catch a connecting flight to Las Vegas, Nevada.

When respondents arrived in Atlanta, petitioner and another DEA agent approached them at the departure gate for their flight to Las Vegas. In response to petitioner's questioning, Fiore explained that she and Gipson were professional gamblers. Respondents maintained that the cash they were carrying was their gambling "`bank'" and winnings. App. 15, 24. After using a drug-sniffing dog to perform a sniff test, petitioner seized the cash.^[1] Petitioner advised respondents that their funds would be returned if they later proved a legitimate source for the cash. Respondents then boarded their plane.

After respondents departed, petitioner moved the cash to a secure location and the matter was forwarded to DEA headquarters. The next day, petitioner received a phone call from respondents' attorney in Nevada seeking return of the funds. On two occasions over the next month, petitioner also received documentation from the attorney regarding the legitimacy of the funds.

At some point after petitioner seized the cash, he helped draft an affidavit to show probable cause for forfeiture of the funds and forwarded that affidavit to a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia.^[2] According [1120] to respondents, the affidavit was false and misleading because petitioner misrepresented the encounter at the airport and omitted exculpatory information regarding the lack of drug evidence and the legitimate source of the funds. In the end, no forfeiture complaint was filed, and the DEA returned the funds to respondents in March 2007.

Respondents filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking money damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Respondents alleged that petitioner violated their Fourth Amendment rights by (1) seizing the cash without probable cause; (2) keeping the money after concluding it did not come from drug-related activity; (3) drafting and forwarding a probable cause affidavit to support a forfeiture action while knowing the affidavit contained false statements; (4) willfully seeking forfeiture while withholding exculpatory information; and (5) withholding that exculpatory information from the United States Attorney's Office.

The District Court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss. Relying on this Court's decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), the court determined that petitioner's search of respondents and his seizure of the cash in Georgia did not establish a basis to exercise personal jurisdiction in Nevada. The court concluded that even if petitioner caused harm to respondents in Nevada while knowing they lived in Nevada, that fact alone did not confer jurisdiction. Because the court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, it did not determine whether venue was proper.

On appeal, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals assumed the District Court had correctly determined that petitioner's search and seizure in Georgia could not support exercise of jurisdiction in Nevada. The court held, however, that the District Court could properly exercise jurisdiction over "the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case." 688 F.3d 558, 577 (2011). According to the Court of Appeals, petitioner "expressly aimed" his submission of the allegedly false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would affect persons with a "significant connection" to Nevada.^[3] Id., at 581. After determining that the delay in returning the funds to respondents caused them "foreseeable harm" in Nevada and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over petitioner was otherwise reasonable, the court found the District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction to be proper.^[4] Id., at 582, 585. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with eight judges, in [1121] two separate opinions, dissenting. Id., at 562, 568.

We granted certiorari to decide whether due process permits a Nevada court to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner. 568 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1493, 185 L.Ed.2d 547 (2013). We hold that it does not and therefore reverse.^[5]

II

A

"Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2014). This is because a federal district court's authority to assert personal jurisdiction in most cases is linked to service of process on a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located." Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A). Here, Nevada has authorized its courts to exercise jurisdiction over persons "on any basis not inconsistent with... the Constitution of the United States." Nev.Rev.Stat. § 14.065 (2011). Thus, in order to determine whether the Federal District Court in this case was authorized to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner, we ask whether the exercise of jurisdiction "comports with the limits imposed by federal due process" on the State of Nevada. Daimler, supra, at ___, 134 S.Ct., at 753.

B

1

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State's authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Although a nonresident's physical presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court is not required, the nonresident generally must have "certain minimum contacts ... such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).

This case addresses the "minimum contacts" necessary to create specific jurisdiction.^[6] The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "focuses on `the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'" Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)). For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State. Two related [1122] aspects of this necessary relationship are relevant in this case.

First, the relationship must arise out of contacts that the "defendant himself" creates with the forum State. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Due process limits on the State's adjudicative authority principally protect the liberty of the nonresident defendant — not the convenience of plaintiffs or third parties. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., supra, at 291-292, 100 S.Ct. 559. We have consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the defendant-focused "minimum contacts" inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) ("[The] unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction"). We have thus rejected a plaintiff's argument that a Florida court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a trustee in Delaware based solely on the contacts of the trust's settlor, who was domiciled in Florida and had executed powers of appointment there. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253-254, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). We have likewise held that Oklahoma courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over an automobile distributor that supplies New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut dealers based only on an automobile purchaser's act of driving it on Oklahoma highways. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., supra, at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559. Put simply, however significant the plaintiff's contacts with the forum may be, those contacts cannot be "decisive in determining whether the defendant's due process rights are violated." Rush, 444 U.S., at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571.

Second, our "minimum contacts" analysis looks to the defendant's contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there. See, e.g., International Shoe, supra, at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154 (Due process "does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual ... with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations"); Hanson, supra, at 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228 ("However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had the `minimal contacts' with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him"). Accordingly, we have upheld the assertion of jurisdiction over defendants who have purposefully "reach[ed] out beyond" their State and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that "envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts" in the forum State, Burger King, supra, at 479-480, 105 S.Ct. 2174, or by circulating magazines to "deliberately exploi[t]" a market in the forum State, Keeton, supra, at 781, 104 S.Ct. 1473. And although physical presence in the forum is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction, Burger King, supra, at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, physical entry into the State — either by the defendant in person or through an agent, goods, mail, or some other means — is certainly a relevant contact. See, e.g., Keeton, supra, at 773-774, 104 S.Ct. 1473.

But the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant's conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him. See Burger King, supra, at 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ("If the question is whether an individual's contract [1123] with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot"); Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco, 436 U.S. 84, 93, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) (declining to "find personal jurisdiction in a State ... merely because [the plaintiff in a child support action] was residing there"). To be sure, a defendant's contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties. But a defendant's relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction. See Rush, supra, at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571 ("Naturally, the parties' relationships with each other may be significant in evaluating their ties to the forum. The requirements of International Shoe, however, must be met as to each defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction"). Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State. Burger King, 471 U.S., at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2

These same principles apply when intentional torts are involved. In that context, it is likewise insufficient to rely on a defendant's "random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts" or on the "unilateral activity" of a plaintiff. Ibid. (same). A forum State's exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, illustrates the application of these principles. In Calder, a California actress brought a libel suit in California state court against a reporter and an editor, both of whom worked for the National Enquirer at its headquarters in Florida. The plaintiff's libel claims were based on an article written and edited by the defendants in Florida for publication in the National Enquirer, a national weekly newspaper with a California circulation of roughly 600,000.

We held that California's assertion of jurisdiction over the defendants was consistent with due process. Although we recognized that the defendants' activities "focus[ed]" on the plaintiff, our jurisdictional inquiry "focuse[d] on `the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'" Id., at 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (quoting Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569). Specifically, we examined the various contacts the defendants had created with California (and not just with the plaintiff) by writing the allegedly libelous story.

We found those forum contacts to be ample: The defendants relied on phone calls to "California sources" for the information in their article; they wrote the story about the plaintiff's activities in California; they caused reputational injury in California by writing an allegedly libelous article that was widely circulated in the State; and the "brunt" of that injury was suffered by the plaintiff in that State. 465 U.S., at 788-789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. "In sum, California [wa]s the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered." Id., at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Jurisdiction over the defendants was "therefore proper in California based on the `effects' of their Florida conduct in California." Ibid.

The crux of Calder was that the reputation-based "effects" of the alleged libel [1124] connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff. The strength of that connection was largely a function of the nature of the libel tort. However scandalous a newspaper article might be, it can lead to a loss of reputation only if communicated to (and read and understood by) third persons. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577, Comment b (1976); see also ibid. ("[R]eputation is the estimation in which one's character is held by his neighbors or associates"). Accordingly, the reputational injury caused by the defendants' story would not have occurred but for the fact that the defendants wrote an article for publication in California that was read by a large number of California citizens. Indeed, because publication to third persons is a necessary element of libel, see id., § 558, the defendants' intentional tort actually occurred in California. Keeton, 465 U.S., at 777, 104 S.Ct. 1473 ("The tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated"). In this way, the "effects" caused by the defendants' article — i.e., the injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of the California public — connected the defendants' conduct to California, not just to a plaintiff who lived there. That connection, combined with the various facts that gave the article a California focus, sufficed to authorize the California court's exercise of jurisdiction.^[7]

III

Applying the foregoing principles, we conclude that petitioner lacks the "minimal contacts" with Nevada that are a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction over him. Hanson, 357 U.S., at 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228. It is undisputed that no part of petitioner's course of conduct occurred in Nevada. Petitioner approached, questioned, and searched respondents, and seized the cash at issue, in the Atlanta airport. It is alleged that petitioner later helped draft a "false probable cause affidavit" in Georgia and forwarded that affidavit to a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia to support a potential action for forfeiture of the seized funds. 688 F.3d, at 563. Petitioner never traveled to, conducted activities within, contacted anyone in, or sent anything or anyone to Nevada. In short, when viewed through the proper lens — whether the defendant's actions connect him to the forum — petitioner formed no jurisdictionally relevant contacts with Nevada.

The Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion by shifting the analytical focus from petitioner's contacts with the forum to his contacts with respondents. See Rush, 444 U.S., at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571. Rather than assessing petitioner's own contacts with Nevada, the Court of Appeals looked to petitioner's knowledge of respondents'"strong forum connections." 688 F.3d, at 577-579, 581. In the court's view, that knowledge, combined with its conclusion that respondents suffered foreseeable harm in Nevada, satisfied the "minimum contacts" inquiry.^[8] Id., at 582.

[1125] This approach to the "minimum contacts" analysis impermissibly allows a plaintiff's contacts with the defendant and forum to drive the jurisdictional analysis. Petitioner's actions in Georgia did not create sufficient contacts with Nevada simply because he allegedly directed his conduct at plaintiffs whom he knew had Nevada connections. Such reasoning improperly attributes a plaintiff's forum connections to the defendant and makes those connections "decisive" in the jurisdictional analysis. See Rush, supra, at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571. It also obscures the reality that none of petitioner's challenged conduct had anything to do with Nevada itself.

Relying on Calder, respondents emphasize that they suffered the "injury" caused by petitioner's allegedly tortious conduct (i.e., the delayed return of their gambling funds) while they were residing in the forum. Brief for Respondents 14. This emphasis is likewise misplaced. As previously noted, Calder made clear that mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum. Regardless of where a plaintiff lives or works, an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the defendant has formed a contact with the forum State. The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.

Respondents' claimed injury does not evince a connection between petitioner and Nevada. Even if we consider the continuation of the seizure in Georgia to be a distinct injury, it is not the sort of effect that is tethered to Nevada in any meaningful way. Respondents (and only respondents) lacked access to their funds in Nevada not because anything independently occurred there, but because Nevada is where respondents chose to be at a time when they desired to use the funds seized by petitioner. Respondents would have experienced this same lack of access in California, Mississippi, or wherever else they might have traveled and found themselves wanting more money than they had. Unlike the broad publication of the forumfocused story in Calder, the effects of petitioner's conduct on respondents are not connected to the forum State in a way that makes those effects a proper basis for jurisdiction.^[9]

The Court of Appeals pointed to other possible contacts with Nevada, each ultimately unavailing. Respondents' Nevada attorney contacted petitioner in Georgia, but that is precisely the sort of "unilateral activity" of a third party that "cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." Hanson, 357 U.S., at 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228. Respondents allege that [1126] some of the cash seized in Georgia "originated" in Nevada, but that attenuated connection was not created by petitioner, and the cash was in Georgia, not Nevada, when petitioner seized it. Finally, the funds were eventually returned to respondents in Nevada, but petitioner had nothing to do with that return (indeed, it seems likely that it was respondents' unilateral decision to have their funds sent to Nevada).

* * *

Well-established principles of personal jurisdiction are sufficient to decide this case. The proper focus of the "minimum contacts" inquiry in intentional-tort cases is "`the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.'" Calder, 465 U.S., at 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482. And it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State. In this case, the application of those principles is clear: Petitioner's relevant conduct occurred entirely in Georgia, and the mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

[1] Respondents allege that the sniff test was "at best, inconclusive," and there is no indication in the pleadings that drugs or drug residue were ever found on or with the cash. App. 21.

[2] The alleged affidavit is not in the record. Because this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage, we take respondents' factual allegations as true, including their allegations regarding the existence and content of the affidavit.

[3] The allegations in the complaint suggested to the Court of Appeals that petitioner "definitely knew, at some point after the seizure but before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit, that [respondents] had a significant connection to Nevada." 688 F.3d, at 578.

[4] Judge Ikuta dissented. In her view, the "false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect" over which the majority found jurisdiction proper was not raised as a separate claim in the complaint, and she found it "doubtful that such a constitutional tort even exists." Id., at 593. After the court denied rehearing en banc, the majority explained in a post-script that it viewed the filing of the false affidavit, which effected a "continued seizure" of the funds, as a separate Fourth Amendment violation. Id., at 588-589. Petitioner does not dispute that reading here.

[5] We also granted certiorari on the question whether Nevada is a proper venue for the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Because we resolve the case on jurisdictional grounds, we do not decide whether venue was proper in Nevada.

[6] "Specific" or "case-linked" jurisdiction "depends on an `affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy'" (i.e., an "activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation"). Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). This is in contrast to "general" or "all purpose" jurisdiction, which permits a court to assert jurisdiction over a defendant based on a forum connection unrelated to the underlying suit (e.g., domicile). Respondents rely on specific jurisdiction only.

[7] The defendants in Calder argued that no contacts they had with California were sufficiently purposeful because their employer was responsible for circulation of the article. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). We rejected that argument. Even though the defendants did not circulate the article themselves, they "expressly aimed" "their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions" at California because they knew the National Enquirer "ha[d] its largest circulation" in California, and that the article would "have a potentially devastating impact" there. Id., at 789-790, 104 S.Ct. 1482.

[8] Respondents propose a substantially similar analysis. They suggest that "a defendant creates sufficient minimum contacts with a forum when he (1) intentionally targets (2) a known resident of the forum (3) for imposition of an injury (4) to be suffered by the plaintiff while she is residing in the forum state." Brief for Respondents 26-27.

[9] Respondents warn that if we decide petitioner lacks minimum contacts in this case, it will bring about unfairness in cases where intentional torts are committed via the Internet or other electronic means (e.g., fraudulent access of financial accounts or "phishing" schemes). As an initial matter, we reiterate that the "minimum contacts" inquiry principally protects the liberty of the nonresident defendant, not the interests of the plaintiff. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). In any event, this case does not present the very different questions whether and how a defendant's virtual "presence" and conduct translate into "contacts" with a particular State. To the contrary, there is no question where the conduct giving rise to this litigation took place: Petitioner seized physical cash from respondents in the Atlanta airport, and he later drafted and forwarded an affidavit in Georgia. We leave questions about virtual contacts for another day.

134 S.Ct. 746 (2014)

No. 11-965.

Argued October 15, 2013.
Decided January 14, 2014.

[750] Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, DC, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Kevin Russell, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Justs N. Karlsons, Matthew J. Kemner, David M. Rice, Troy M. Yoshino, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, San Francisco, Theodore B. Olson, Daniel W. Nelson, Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Counsel of Record, Amir C. Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Counsel for Petitioner.

Kevin K. Russell, Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Counsel of Record, Washington, DC, Pamela S. Karlan, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School, Supreme Court, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, Terrence P. Collingsworth, Christian Levesque, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the authority of a court in the United States to entertain a claim brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign defendant based on events occurring entirely outside the United States. The litigation commenced in 2004, when twenty-two Argentinian residents^[1] filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against DaimlerChrysler Aktiengesellschaft [751] (Daimler),^[2] a German public stock company, headquartered in Stuttgart, that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany. The complaint alleged that during Argentina's 1976-1983 "Dirty War," Daimler's Argentinian subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina) collaborated with state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, among them, plaintiffs or persons closely related to plaintiffs. Damages for the alleged human-rights violations were sought from Daimler under the laws of the United States, California, and Argentina. Jurisdiction over the lawsuit was predicated on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), a subsidiary of Daimler incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. MBUSA distributes Daimler-manufactured vehicles to independent dealerships throughout the United States, including California.

The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes the District Court from exercising jurisdiction over Daimler in this case, given the absence of any California connection to the atrocities, perpetrators, or victims described in the complaint. Plaintiffs invoked the court's general or all-purpose jurisdiction. California, they urge, is a place where Daimler may be sued on any and all claims against it, wherever in the world the claims may arise. For example, as plaintiffs' counsel affirmed, under the proffered jurisdictional theory, if a Daimler-manufactured vehicle overturned in Poland, injuring a Polish driver and passenger, the injured parties could maintain a design defect suit in California. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. Exercises of personal jurisdiction so exorbitant, we hold, are barred by due process constraints on the assertion of adjudicatory authority.

In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), we addressed the distinction between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or conduct-linked jurisdiction. As to the former, we held that a court may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation "to hear any and all claims against [it]" only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive "as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2851. Instructed by Goodyear, we conclude Daimler is not "at home" in California, and cannot be sued there for injuries plaintiffs attribute to MB Argentina's conduct in Argentina.

I

In 2004, plaintiffs (respondents here) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that MB Argentina collaborated with Argentinian state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill plaintiffs and their relatives during the military dictatorship in place there from 1976 through 1983, a period known as Argentina's "Dirty War." Based on those allegations, plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350, as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of California and Argentina. The incidents recounted in the [752] complaint center on MB Argentina's plant in Gonzalez Catan, Argentina; no part of MB Argentina's alleged collaboration with Argentinian authorities took place in California or anywhere else in the United States.

Plaintiffs' operative complaint names only one corporate defendant: Daimler, the petitioner here. Plaintiffs seek to hold Daimler vicariously liable for MB Argentina's alleged malfeasance. Daimler is a German Aktiengesellschaft (public stock company) that manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany and has its headquarters in Stuttgart. At times relevant to this case, MB Argentina was a subsidiary wholly owned by Daimler's predecessor in interest.

Daimler moved to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Opposing the motion, plaintiffs submitted declarations and exhibits purporting to demonstrate the presence of Daimler itself in California. Alternatively, plaintiffs maintained that jurisdiction over Daimler could be founded on the California contacts of MBUSA, a distinct corporate entity that, according to plaintiffs, should be treated as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes.

MBUSA, an indirect subsidiary of Daimler, is a Delaware limited liability corporation.^[3] MBUSA serves as Daimler's exclusive importer and distributor in the United States, purchasing Mercedes-Benz automobiles from Daimler in Germany, then importing those vehicles, and ultimately distributing them to independent dealerships located throughout the Nation. Although MBUSA's principal place of business is in New Jersey, MBUSA has multiple California-based facilities, including a regional office in Costa Mesa, a Vehicle Preparation Center in Carson, and a Classic Center in Irvine. According to the record developed below, MBUSA is the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to the California market. In particular, over 10% of all sales of new vehicles in the United States take place in California, and MBUSA's California sales account for 2.4% of Daimler's worldwide sales.

The relationship between Daimler and MBUSA is delineated in a General Distributor Agreement, which sets forth requirements for MBUSA's distribution of Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the United States. That agreement established MBUSA as an "independent contracto[r]" that "buy[s] and sell[s] [vehicles] ... as an independent business for [its] own account." App. 179a. The agreement "does not make [MBUSA] ... a general or special agent, partner, joint venturer or employee of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any Daimler-Chrysler Group Company"; MBUSA "ha[s] no authority to make binding obligations for or act on behalf of DAIMLERCHRYSLER or any DaimlerChrysler Group Company." Ibid.

After allowing jurisdictional discovery on plaintiffs' agency allegations, the District Court granted Daimler's motion to dismiss. Daimler's own affiliations with California, the court first determined, were insufficient to support the exercise of all-purpose jurisdiction over the corporation. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. C-04-00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Nov. 22, 2005), App. to Pet. for Cert. 111a-112a, 2005 WL 3157472, *9-*10. Next, the court declined to attribute MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler on an agency theory, concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent. Id., at 117a, 133a, 2005 WL 3157472, *12, *19; Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG, No. [753] C-04-00194 RMW (N.D.Cal., Feb. 12, 2007), App. to Pet. for Cert. 83a-85a, 2007 WL 486389, *2.

The Ninth Circuit at first affirmed the District Court's judgment. Addressing solely the question of agency, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had not shown the existence of an agency relationship of the kind that might warrant attribution of MBUSA's contacts to Daimler. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088, 1096-1097 (2009). Judge Reinhardt dissented. In his view, the agency test was satisfied and considerations of "reasonableness" did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction. Id., at 1098-1106. Granting plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, the panel withdrew its initial opinion and replaced it with one authored by Judge Reinhardt, which elaborated on reasoning he initially expressed in dissent. Bauman v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (C.A.9 2011).

Daimler petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, urging that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Daimler could not be reconciled with this Court's decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). Over the dissent of eight judges, the Ninth Circuit denied Daimler's petition. See Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676 F.3d 774 (2011) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

We granted certiorari to decide whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Daimler is amenable to suit in California courts for claims involving only foreign plaintiffs and conduct occurring entirely abroad. 569 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1995, 185 L.Ed.2d 865 (2013).

II

Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A) (service of process is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located"). Under California's long-arm statute, California state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 410.10 (West 2004). California's long-arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution. We therefore inquire whether the Ninth Circuit's holding comports with the limits imposed by federal due process. See, e.g., Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 464, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).

III

In Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878), decided shortly after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that a tribunal's jurisdiction over persons reaches no farther than the geographic bounds of the forum. See id., at 720 ("The authority of every tribunal is necessarily restricted by the territorial limits of the State in which it is established."). See also Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 197, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (Under Pennoyer, "any attempt `directly' to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over persons or property would offend sister States and exceed the inherent limits of the State's power."). In time, however, that strict territorial approach yielded to a less rigid understanding, spurred by "changes in the technology of transportation and communication, and the tremendous growth of interstate business activity." Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., [754] County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 617, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990) (opinion of SCALIA, J.).

"The canonical opinion in this area remains International Shoe [Co. v. Washington], 326 U.S. 310 [66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)], in which we held that a State may authorize its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant has `certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."'" Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2853 (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154). Following International Shoe, "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, rather than the mutually exclusive sovereignty of the States on which the rules of Pennoyer rest, became the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction." Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569.

International Shoe's conception of "fair play and substantial justice" presaged the development of two categories of personal jurisdiction. The first category is represented by International Shoe itself, a case in which the in-state activities of the corporate defendant "ha[d] not only been continuous and systematic, but also g[a]ve rise to the liabilities sued on." 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154.^[4]International Shoe recognized, as well, that "the commission of some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state" may sometimes be enough to subject the corporation to jurisdiction in that State's tribunals with respect to suits relating to that in-state activity. Id., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. Adjudicatory authority of this order, in which the suit "aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum," Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984), is today called "specific jurisdiction." See Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2853 (citing von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 1121, 1144-1163 (1966) (hereinafter von Mehren & Trautman)).

International Shoe distinguished between, on the one hand, exercises of specific jurisdiction, as just described, and on the other, situations where a foreign corporation's "continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities." 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. As we have since explained, "[a] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so `continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2851; see id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2853-2854; Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at 414, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 1868.^[5]

[755] Since International Shoe, "specific jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdiction theory, while general jurisdiction [has played] a reduced role." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2854 (quoting Twitchell, The Myth of General Jurisdiction, 101 Harv. L.Rev. 610, 628 (1988)). International Shoe's momentous departure from Pennoyer's rigidly territorial focus, we have noted, unleashed a rapid expansion of tribunals' ability to hear claims against out-of-state defendants when the episode-in-suit occurred in the forum or the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum.^[6] Our subsequent decisions have continued to bear out the prediction that "specific jurisdiction will come into sharper relief and form a considerably more significant part of the scene." von Mehren & Trautman 1164.^[7]

Our post-International Shoe opinions on general jurisdiction, by comparison, are few. "[The Court's] 1952 decision in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. remains the textbook case of general jurisdiction [756] appropriately exercised over a foreign corporation that has not consented to suit in the forum." Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2856 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The defendant in Perkins, Benguet, was a company incorporated under the laws of the Philippines, where it operated gold and silver mines. Benguet ceased its mining operations during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II; its president moved to Ohio, where he kept an office, maintained the company's files, and oversaw the company's activities. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). The plaintiff, an Ohio resident, sued Benguet on a claim that neither arose in Ohio nor related to the corporation's activities in that State. We held that the Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over Benguet without offending due process. Ibid. That was so, we later noted, because "Ohio was the corporation's principal, if temporary, place of business." Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780, n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984).^[8]

The next case on point, Helicopteros, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404, arose from a helicopter crash in Peru. Four U.S. citizens perished in that accident; their survivors and representatives brought suit in Texas state court against the helicopter's owner and operator, a Colombian corporation. That company's contacts with Texas were confined to "sending its chief executive officer to Houston for a [757] contract-negotiation session; accepting into its New York bank account checks drawn on a Houston bank; purchasing helicopters, equipment, and training services from [a Texas-based helicopter company] for substantial sums; and sending personnel to [Texas] for training." Id., at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868. Notably, those contacts bore no apparent relationship to the accident that gave rise to the suit. We held that the company's Texas connections did not resemble the "continuous and systematic general business contacts ... found to exist in Perkins." Ibid. "[M]ere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals," we clarified, "are not enough to warrant a State's assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions." Id., at 418, 104 S.Ct. 1868.

Most recently, in Goodyear, we answered the question: "Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State?" 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2850. That case arose from a bus accident outside Paris that killed two boys from North Carolina. The boys' parents brought a wrongful-death suit in North Carolina state court alleging that the bus's tire was defectively manufactured. The complaint named as defendants not only The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), an Ohio corporation, but also Goodyear's Turkish, French, and Luxembourgian subsidiaries. Those foreign subsidiaries, which manufactured tires for sale in Europe and Asia, lacked any affiliation with North Carolina. A small percentage of tires manufactured by the foreign subsidiaries were distributed in North Carolina, however, and on that ground, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held the subsidiaries amenable to the general jurisdiction of North Carolina courts.

We reversed, observing that the North Carolina court's analysis "elided the essential difference between case-specific and all-purpose (general) jurisdiction." Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2855. Although the placement of a product into the stream of commerce "may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction," we explained, such contacts "do not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant." Id., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2857. As International Shoe itself teaches, a corporation's "continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity." 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. Because Goodyear's foreign subsidiaries were "in no sense at home in North Carolina," we held, those subsidiaries could not be required to submit to the general jurisdiction of that State's courts. 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2857. See also J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2797-2798, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (noting unanimous agreement that a foreign manufacturer, which engaged an independent U.S.-based distributor to sell its machines throughout the United States, could not be exposed to all-purpose jurisdiction in New Jersey courts based on those contacts).

As is evident from Perkins, Helicopteros, and Goodyear, general and specific jurisdiction have followed markedly different trajectories post-International Shoe. Specific jurisdiction has been cut loose from Pennoyer's sway, but we have declined to stretch general jurisdiction beyond [758] limits traditionally recognized.^[9] As this Court has increasingly trained on the "relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation," Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, i.e., specific jurisdiction,^[10] general jurisdiction has come to occupy a less dominant place in the contemporary scheme.^[11]

IV

With this background, we turn directly to the question whether Daimler's affiliations with California are sufficient to subject it to the general (all-purpose) personal jurisdiction of that State's courts. In the proceedings below, the parties agreed on, or failed to contest, certain points we now take as given. Plaintiffs have never attempted to fit this case into the specific jurisdiction category. Nor did plaintiffs challenge on appeal the District Court's holding that Daimler's own contacts with California were, by themselves, too sporadic to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction. While plaintiffs ultimately persuaded the Ninth Circuit to impute MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler on an agency theory, at no point have they maintained that MBUSA is an alter ego of Daimler.

Daimler, on the other hand, failed to object below to plaintiffs' assertion that the California courts could exercise all-purpose jurisdiction over MBUSA.^[12] But see Brief for Petitioner 23, n. 4 (suggestion that in light of Goodyear, MBUSA may not be amenable to general jurisdiction in California); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16, n. 5 (hereinafter U.S. Brief) (same). We will assume then, for purposes of this decision only, that MBUSA qualifies as at home in California.

A

In sustaining the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler, the Ninth Circuit relied on an agency theory, determining that MBUSA acted as Daimler's agent for jurisdictional purposes and then [759] attributing MBUSA's California contacts to Daimler. The Ninth Circuit's agency analysis derived from Circuit precedent considering principally whether the subsidiary "performs services that are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation's own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services." 644 F.3d, at 920 (quoting Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 928 (C.A.9 2001); emphasis deleted).

This Court has not yet addressed whether a foreign corporation may be subjected to a court's general jurisdiction based on the contacts of its in-state subsidiary. Daimler argues, and several Courts of Appeals have held, that a subsidiary's jurisdictional contacts can be imputed to its parent only when the former is so dominated by the latter as to be its alter ego. The Ninth Circuit adopted a less rigorous test based on what it described as an "agency" relationship. Agencies, we note, come in many sizes and shapes: "One may be an agent for some business purposes and not others so that the fact that one may be an agent for one purpose does not make him or her an agent for every purpose." 2A C. J. S., Agency § 43, p. 367 (2013) (footnote omitted).^[13] A subsidiary, for example, might be its parent's agent for claims arising in the place where the subsidiary operates, yet not its agent regarding claims arising elsewhere. The Court of Appeals did not advert to that prospect. But we need not pass judgment on invocation of an agency theory in the context of general jurisdiction, for in no event can the appeals court's analysis be sustained.

The Ninth Circuit's agency finding rested primarily on its observation that MBUSA's services were "important" to Daimler, as gauged by Daimler's hypothetical readiness to perform those services itself if MBUSA did not exist. Formulated this way, the inquiry into importance stacks the deck, for it will always yield a pro-jurisdiction answer: "Anything a corporation does through an independent contractor, subsidiary, or distributor is presumably something that the corporation would do `by other means' if the independent contractor, subsidiary, or distributor did not exist." 676 F.3d, at 777 (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).^[14] The Ninth Circuit's agency theory [760] thus appears to subject foreign corporations to general jurisdiction whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate, an outcome that would sweep beyond even the "sprawling view of general jurisdiction" we rejected in Goodyear. 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2856.^[15]

B

Even if we were to assume that MBUSA is at home in California, and further to assume MBUSA's contacts are imputable to Daimler, there would still be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California, for Daimler's slim contacts with the State hardly render it at home there.^[16]

Goodyear made clear that only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there. "For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home." 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2853-2854 (citing Brilmayer et al., A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L.Rev. 721, 728 (1988)). With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are "paradig[m] ... bases for general jurisdiction." Id., at 735. See also Twitchell, 101 Harv. L.Rev., at 633. Those affiliations have the virtue of being unique — that is, each ordinarily indicates only one place — as well as easily ascertainable. Cf. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010) ("Simple jurisdictional rules ... promote greater predictability."). These bases afford plaintiffs recourse to at least one clear and certain forum in which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all claims.

Goodyear did not hold that a corporation may be subject to general jurisdiction only in a forum where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business; it simply typed those places paradigm all-purpose forums. Plaintiffs would have us look beyond the exemplar bases Goodyear identified, [761] and approve the exercise of general jurisdiction in every State in which a corporation "engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business." Brief for Respondents 16-17, and nn. 7-8. That formulation, we hold, is unacceptably grasping.

As noted, see supra, at 753-754, the words "continuous and systematic" were used in International Shoe to describe instances in which the exercise of specific jurisdiction would be appropriate. See 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154 (jurisdiction can be asserted where a corporation's in-state activities are not only "continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on").^[17] Turning to all-purpose jurisdiction, in contrast, International Shoe speaks of "instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit ... on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities." Id., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154 (emphasis added). See also Twitchell, Why We Keep Doing Business With Doing-Business Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 171, 184 (International Shoe "is clearly not saying that dispute-blind jurisdiction exists whenever `continuous and systematic' contacts are found.").<sup>[18]</sup> Accordingly, the inquiry under Goodyear is not whether a foreign corporation's in-forum contacts can be said to be in some sense "continuous and systematic," it is whether that corporation's "affiliations with the State are so `continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2851.^[19]

Here, neither Daimler nor MBUSA is incorporated in California, nor does either entity have its principal place of business there. If Daimler's California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California, the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which MBUSA's sales are sizable. Such exorbitant exercises of all-purpose jurisdiction would [762] scarcely permit out-of-state defendants "to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S., at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted).

It was therefore error for the Ninth Circuit to conclude that Daimler, even with MBUSA's contacts attributed to it, was at home in California, and hence subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do with anything that occurred or had its principal impact in California.^[20]

C

Finally, the transnational context of this dispute bears attention. The Court of Appeals emphasized, as supportive of the exercise of general jurisdiction, plaintiffs' assertion of claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. § 1350. See 644 F.3d, at 927 ("American federal courts, be they in California or any other state, have a strong interest in adjudicating and redressing international human rights abuses."). Recent decisions of this Court, however, have [763] rendered plaintiffs' ATS and TVPA claims infirm. See Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) (presumption against extraterritorial application controls claims under the ATS); Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. ___, ___, 132 S.Ct. 1702, 1705, 182 L.Ed.2d 720 (2012) (only natural persons are subject to liability under the TVPA).

The Ninth Circuit, moreover, paid little heed to the risks to international comity its expansive view of general jurisdiction posed. Other nations do not share the uninhibited approach to personal jurisdiction advanced by the Court of Appeals in this case. In the European Union, for example, a corporation may generally be sued in the nation in which it is "domiciled," a term defined to refer only to the location of the corporation's "statutory seat," "central administration," or "principal place of business." European Parliament and Council Reg. 1215/2012, Arts. 4(1), and 63(1), 2012 O.J. (L. 351) 7, 18. See also id., Art. 7(5), 2012 O.J. 7 (as to "a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment," a corporation may be sued "in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated" (emphasis added)). The Solicitor General informs us, in this regard, that "foreign governments' objections to some domestic courts' expansive views of general jurisdiction have in the past impeded negotiations of international agreements on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments." U.S. Brief 2 (citing Juenger, The American Law of General Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 141, 161-162). See also U.S. Brief 2 (expressing concern that unpredictable applications of general jurisdiction based on activities of U.S.-based subsidiaries could discourage foreign investors); Brief for Respondents 35 (acknowledging that "doing business" basis for general jurisdiction has led to "international friction"). Considerations of international rapport thus reinforce our determination that subjecting Daimler to the general jurisdiction of courts in California would not accord with the "fair play and substantial justice" due process demands. International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).

* * *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is

Reversed.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court's conclusion that the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Daimler in light of the unique circumstances of this case. I concur only in the judgment, however, because I cannot agree with the path the Court takes to arrive at that result.

The Court acknowledges that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), Daimler's wholly owned subsidiary, has considerable contacts with California. It has multiple facilities in the State, including a regional headquarters. Each year, it distributes in California tens of thousands of cars, the sale of which generated billions of dollars in the year this suit was brought. And it provides service and sales support to customers throughout the State. Daimler has conceded that California courts may exercise general jurisdiction over MBUSA on the basis of these contacts, and the Court assumes that MBUSA's contacts may be attributed to Daimler for the purpose of deciding whether Daimler is also subject to general jurisdiction.

Are these contacts sufficient to permit the exercise of general jurisdiction over [764] Daimler? The Court holds that they are not, for a reason wholly foreign to our due process jurisprudence. The problem, the Court says, is not that Daimler's contacts with California are too few, but that its contacts with other forums are too many. In other words, the Court does not dispute that the presence of multiple offices, the direct distribution of thousands of products accounting for billions of dollars in sales, and continuous interaction with customers throughout a State would be enough to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over some businesses. Daimler is just not one of those businesses, the Court concludes, because its California contacts must be viewed in the context of its extensive "nationwide and worldwide" operations. Ante, at 762, n. 20. In recent years, Americans have grown accustomed to the concept of multinational corporations that are supposedly "too big to fail"; today the Court deems Daimler "too big for general jurisdiction."

The Court's conclusion is wrong as a matter of both process and substance. As to process, the Court decides this case on a ground that was neither argued nor passed on below, and that Daimler raised for the first time in a footnote to its brief. Brief for Petitioner 31-32, n. 5. As to substance, the Court's focus on Daimler's operations outside of California ignores the lodestar of our personal jurisdiction jurisprudence: A State may subject a defendant to the burden of suit if the defendant has sufficiently taken advantage of the State's laws and protections through its contacts in the State; whether the defendant has contacts elsewhere is immaterial.

Regrettably, these errors are unforced. The Court can and should decide this case on the far simpler ground that, no matter how extensive Daimler's contacts with California, that State's exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable given that the case involves foreign plaintiffs suing a foreign defendant based on foreign conduct, and given that a more appropriate forum is available. Because I would reverse the judgment below on this ground, I concur in the judgment only.

I

I begin with the point on which the majority and I agree: The Ninth Circuit's decision should be reversed.

Our personal jurisdiction precedents call for a two-part analysis. The contacts prong asks whether the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum State to support personal jurisdiction; the reasonableness prong asks whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-478, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). As the majority points out, all of the cases in which we have applied the reasonableness prong have involved specific as opposed to general jurisdiction. Ante, at 762, n. 20. Whether the reasonableness prong should apply in the general jurisdiction context is therefore a question we have never decided,^[21] and it is one on which I can appreciate [765] the arguments on both sides. But it would be imprudent to decide that question in this case given that respondents have failed to argue against the application of the reasonableness prong during the entire 8-year history of this litigation. See Brief for Respondents 11, 12, 13, 16 (conceding application of the reasonableness inquiry); Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in No. 04-00194-RMW (ND Cal., May 16, 2005), pp. 14-23 (same). As a result, I would decide this case under the reasonableness prong without foreclosing future consideration of whether that prong should be limited to the specific jurisdiction context.^[22]

We identified the factors that bear on reasonableness in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987): "the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum State," "the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief" in the forum State, and the interests of other sovereigns in resolving the dispute. Id., at 113-114, 107 S.Ct. 1026. We held in Asahi that it would be "unreasonable and unfair" for a California court to exercise jurisdiction over a claim between a Taiwanese plaintiff and a Japanese defendant that arose out of a transaction in Taiwan, particularly where the Taiwanese plaintiff had not shown that it would be more convenient to litigate in California than in Taiwan or Japan. Id., at 114, 107 S.Ct. 1026.

The same considerations resolve this case. It involves Argentine plaintiffs suing a German defendant for conduct that took place in Argentina. Like the plaintiffs in Asahi, respondents have failed to show that it would be more convenient to litigate in California than in Germany, a sovereign with a far greater interest in resolving the dispute. Asahi thus makes clear that it would be unreasonable for a court in California to subject Daimler to its jurisdiction.

II

The majority evidently agrees that, if the reasonableness prong were to apply, it would be unreasonable for California courts to exercise jurisdiction over Daimler in this case. See ante, at 761-762 (noting that it would be "exorbitant" for California courts to exercise general jurisdiction over Daimler, a German defendant, in this "Argentina-rooted case" brought by "foreign plaintiffs"). But instead of resolving the case on this uncontroversial basis, the majority reaches out to decide it on a ground neither argued nor decided below.^[23]

[766] We generally do not pass on arguments that lower courts have not addressed. See, e.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005). After all, "we are a court of review, not of first view." Ibid. This principle carries even greater force where the argument at issue was never pressed below. See Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 205, 121 S.Ct. 696, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001). Yet the majority disregards this principle, basing its decision on an argument raised for the first time in a footnote of Daimler's merits brief before this Court. Brief for Petitioner 32, n. 5 ("Even if MBUSA were a division of Daimler AG rather than a separate corporation, Daimler AG would still ... not be `at home' in California").

The majority's decision is troubling all the more because the parties were not asked to brief this issue. We granted certiorari on the question "whether it violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum State." Pet. for Cert. i. At no point in Daimler's petition for certiorari did the company contend that, even if this attribution question were decided against it, its contacts in California would still be insufficient to support general jurisdiction. The parties' merits briefs accordingly focused on the attribution-of-contacts question, addressing the reasonableness inquiry (which had been litigated and decided below) in most of the space that remained. See Brief for Petitioner 17-37, 37-43; Brief for Respondents 18-47, 47-59.

In bypassing the question on which we granted certiorari to decide an issue not litigated below, the Court leaves respondents "without an unclouded opportunity to air the issue the Court today decides against them," Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1436, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013) (GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., dissenting). Doing so "does `not reflect well on the processes of the Court.'" Ibid. (quoting Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 772, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515 (1967) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). "And by resolving a complex and fact-intensive question without the benefit of full briefing, the Court invites the error into which it has fallen." 569 U.S., at ___, 133 S.Ct., at 1436.

The relevant facts are undeveloped because Daimler conceded at the start of this litigation that MBUSA is subject to general jurisdiction based on its California contacts. We therefore do not know the full extent of those contacts, though what little we do know suggests that Daimler was wise to concede what it did. MBUSA imports more than 200,000 vehicles into the United States and distributes many of them to independent dealerships in California, where they are sold. Declaration of Dr. Peter Waskönig in Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 04-00194-RMW (N.D.Cal.), ¶ 10, p. 2. MBUSA's California sales account for 2.4% of Daimler's worldwide sales, which were $192 billion in [767] 2004.^[24] And 2.4% of $192 billion is $4.6 billion, a considerable sum by any measure. MBUSA also has multiple offices and facilities in California, including a regional headquarters.

But the record does not answer a number of other important questions. Are any of Daimler's key files maintained in MBUSA's California offices? How many employees work in those offices? Do those employees make important strategic decisions or oversee in any manner Daimler's activities? These questions could well affect whether Daimler is subject to general jurisdiction. After all, this Court upheld the exercise of general jurisdiction in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952) — which the majority refers to as a "textbook case" of general jurisdiction, ante, at 755-756 — on the basis that the foreign defendant maintained an office in Ohio, kept corporate files there, and oversaw the company's activities from the State. California-based MBUSA employees may well have done similar things on Daimler's behalf.^[25] But because the Court decides the issue without a developed record, we will never know.

III

While the majority's decisional process is problematic enough, I fear that process leads it to an even more troubling result.

A

Until today, our precedents had established a straightforward test for general jurisdiction: Does the defendant have "continuous corporate operations within a state" that are "so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities"? International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 318, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (asking whether defendant had "continuous and systematic general business contacts").^[26] In every case where we have applied this test, we have focused solely on the magnitude of the defendant's in-state contacts, not the relative magnitude of those contacts in comparison to the defendant's contacts with other States.

In Perkins, for example, we found an Ohio court's exercise of general jurisdiction [768] permissible where the president of the foreign defendant "maintained an office," "drew and distributed ... salary checks," used "two active bank accounts," "supervised... the rehabilitation of the corporation's properties in the Philippines," and held "directors' meetings," in Ohio. 342 U.S., at 447-448, 72 S.Ct. 413. At no point did we attempt to catalog the company's contacts in forums other than Ohio or to compare them with its Ohio contacts. If anything, we intimated that the defendant's Ohio contacts were not substantial in comparison to its contacts elsewhere. See id., at 438, 72 S.Ct. 413 (noting that the defendant's Ohio contacts, while "continuous and systematic," were but a "limited... part of its general business").^[27]

We engaged in the same inquiry in Helicopteros. There, we held that a Colombian corporation was not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas simply because it occasionally sent its employees into the State, accepted checks drawn on a Texas bank, and purchased equipment and services from a Texas company. In no sense did our analysis turn on the extent of the company's operations beyond Texas.

Most recently, in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011), our analysis again focused on the defendant's in-state contacts. Goodyear involved a suit against foreign tire manufacturers by North Carolina residents whose children had died in a bus accident in France. We held that North Carolina courts could not exercise general jurisdiction over the foreign defendants. Just as in Perkins and Helicopteros, our opinion in Goodyear did not identify the defendants' contacts outside of the forum State, but focused instead on the defendants' lack of offices, employees, direct sales, and business operations within the State.

This approach follows from the touchstone principle of due process in this field, the concept of reciprocal fairness. When a corporation chooses to invoke the benefits and protections of a State in which it operates, the State acquires the authority to subject the company to suit in its courts. See International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154 ("[T]o the extent that a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws of that state" such that an "obligatio[n] arise[s]" to respond there to suit); J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2796-2797, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011) (plurality opinion) (same principle for general jurisdiction). The majority's focus on the extent of a corporate defendant's out-of-forum contacts is untethered from this rationale. After all, the degree to which a company [769] intentionally benefits from a forum State depends on its interactions with that State, not its interactions elsewhere. An article on which the majority relies (and on which Goodyear relied as well, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2853-2854) expresses the point well: "We should not treat defendants as less amenable to suit merely because they carry on more substantial business in other states.... [T]he amount of activity elsewhere seems virtually irrelevant to ... the imposition of general jurisdiction over a defendant." Brilmayer et al., A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L.Rev. 721, 742 (1988).

Had the majority applied our settled approach, it would have had little trouble concluding that Daimler's California contacts rise to the requisite level, given the majority's assumption that MBUSA's contacts may be attributed to Daimler and given Daimler's concession that those contacts render MBUSA "at home" in California. Our cases have long stated the rule that a defendant's contacts with a forum State must be continuous, substantial, and systematic in order for the defendant to be subject to that State's general jurisdiction. See Perkins, 342 U.S., at 446, 72 S.Ct. 413. We offered additional guidance in Goodyear, adding the phrase "essentially at home" to our prior formulation of the rule. 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2851 (a State may exercise general jurisdiction where a defendant's "affiliations with the State are so `continuous and systematic' as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum State"). We used the phrase "at home" to signify that in order for an out-of-state defendant to be subject to general jurisdiction, its continuous and substantial contacts with a forum State must be akin to those of a local enterprise that actually is "at home" in the State. See Brilmayer, supra, at 742.^[28]

[770] Under this standard, Daimler's concession that MBUSA is subject to general jurisdiction in California (a concession the Court accepts, ante, at 758, 759) should be dispositive. For if MBUSA's California contacts are so substantial and the resulting benefits to MBUSA so significant as to make MBUSA "at home" in California, the same must be true of Daimler when MBUSA's contacts and benefits are viewed as its own. Indeed, until a footnote in its brief before this Court, even Daimler did not dispute this conclusion for eight years of the litigation.

B

The majority today concludes otherwise. Referring to the "continuous and systematic" contacts inquiry that has been taught to generations of first-year law students as "unacceptably grasping," ante, at 760, the majority announces the new rule that in order for a foreign defendant to be subject to general jurisdiction, it must not only possess continuous and systematic contacts with a forum State, but those contacts must also surpass some unspecified level when viewed in comparison to the company's "nationwide and worldwide" activities. Ante, at 762, n. 20.^[29]

Neither of the majority's two rationales for this proportionality requirement is persuasive. First, the majority suggests that its approach is necessary for the sake of predictability. Permitting general jurisdiction in every State where a corporation has continuous and substantial contacts, the majority asserts, would "scarcely permit out-of-state defendants `to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.'" Ante, at 762 (quoting Burger King Corp., 471 U.S., at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174). But there is nothing unpredictable about a rule that instructs multinational corporations that if they engage in continuous and substantial contacts with more than one State, they will be subject to general jurisdiction in each one. The majority may not favor that rule as a matter of policy, but such disagreement does not render an otherwise routine test unpredictable.

Nor is the majority's proportionality inquiry any more predictable than the approach it rejects. If anything, the majority's approach injects an additional layer of uncertainty because a corporate defendant must now try to foretell a court's analysis as to both the sufficiency of its contacts with the forum State itself, as well as the relative sufficiency of those contacts in light of the company's operations elsewhere. Moreover, the majority does not even try to explain just how extensive the company's in-state contacts must be in the context of its global operations in order for general jurisdiction to be proper.

The majority's approach will also lead to greater unpredictability by radically expanding the scope of jurisdictional discovery. [771] Rather than ascertaining the extent of a corporate defendant's forum-state contacts alone, courts will now have to identify the extent of a company's contacts in every other forum where it does business in order to compare them against the company's in-state contacts. That considerable burden runs headlong into the majority's recitation of the familiar principle that "`[s]imple jurisdictional rules ... promote greater predictability.'" Ante, at 760-761 (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010)).

Absent the predictability rationale, the majority's sole remaining justification for its proportionality approach is its unadorned concern for the consequences. "If Daimler's California activities sufficed to allow adjudication of this Argentina-rooted case in California," the majority laments, "the same global reach would presumably be available in every other State in which MBUSA's sales are sizable." Ante, at 761.

The majority characterizes this result as "exorbitant," ibid., but in reality it is an inevitable consequence of the rule of due process we set forth nearly 70 years ago, that there are "instances in which [a company's] continuous corporate operations within a state" are "so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities," International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. In the era of International Shoe, it was rare for a corporation to have such substantial nationwide contacts that it would be subject to general jurisdiction in a large number of States. Today, that circumstance is less rare. But that is as it should be. What has changed since International Shoe is not the due process principle of fundamental fairness but rather the nature of the global economy. Just as it was fair to say in the 1940's that an out-of-state company could enjoy the benefits of a forum State enough to make it "essentially at home" in the State, it is fair to say today that a multinational conglomerate can enjoy such extensive benefits in multiple forum States that it is "essentially at home" in each one.

In any event, to the extent the majority is concerned with the modern-day consequences of International Shoe's conception of personal jurisdiction, there remain other judicial doctrines available to mitigate any resulting unfairness to large corporate defendants. Here, for instance, the reasonableness prong may afford petitioner relief. See supra, at 764-765. In other cases, a defendant can assert the doctrine of forum non conveniens if a given State is a highly inconvenient place to litigate a dispute. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). In still other cases, the federal change of venue statute can provide protection. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (permitting transfers to other districts "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in the interests of justice"). And to the degree that the majority worries these doctrines are not enough to protect the economic interests of multinational businesses (or that our longstanding approach to general jurisdiction poses "risks to international comity," ante, at 762), the task of weighing those policy concerns belongs ultimately to legislators, who may amend state and federal long-arm statutes in accordance with the democratic process. Unfortunately, the majority short circuits that process by enshrining today's narrow rule of general jurisdiction as a matter of constitutional law.

C

The majority's concern for the consequences of its decision should have led it [772] the other way, because the rule that it adopts will produce deep injustice in at least four respects.

First, the majority's approach unduly curtails the States' sovereign authority to adjudicate disputes against corporate defendants who have engaged in continuous and substantial business operations within their boundaries.^[30] The majority does not dispute that a State can exercise general jurisdiction where a corporate defendant has its corporate headquarters, and hence its principal place of business within the State. Cf. Hertz Corp., 559 U.S., at 93, 130 S.Ct. 1181. Yet it never explains why the State should lose that power when, as is increasingly common, a corporation "divide[s] [its] command and coordinating functions among officers who work at several different locations." Id., at 95-96, 130 S.Ct. 1181. Suppose a company divides its management functions equally among three offices in different States, with one office nominally deemed the company's corporate headquarters. If the State where the headquarters is located can exercise general jurisdiction, why should the other two States be constitutionally forbidden to do the same? Indeed, under the majority's approach, the result would be unchanged even if the company has substantial operations within the latter two States (and even if the company has no sales or other business operations in the first State). Put simply, the majority's rule defines the Due Process Clause so narrowly and arbitrarily as to contravene the States' sovereign prerogative to subject to judgment defendants who have manifested an unqualified "intention to benefit from and thus an intention to submit to the[ir] laws," J. McIntyre, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2787 (plurality opinion).

Second, the proportionality approach will treat small businesses unfairly in comparison to national and multinational conglomerates. Whereas a larger company will often be immunized from general jurisdiction in a State on account of its extensive contacts outside the forum, a small business will not be. For instance, the majority holds today that Daimler is not subject to general jurisdiction in California despite its multiple offices, continuous operations, and billions of dollars' worth of sales there. But imagine a small business that manufactures luxury vehicles principally targeting the California market and that has substantially all of its sales and operations in the State — even though those sales and operations may amount to one-thousandth of Daimler's. Under the majority's rule, that small business will be subject to suit in California on any cause of action involving any of its activities anywhere in the world, while its far more pervasive competitor, Daimler, will not be. That will be so even if the small business incorporates and sets up its headquarters elsewhere (as Daimler does), since the small business' California sales and operations would still predominate when "apprais[ed]" in proportion to its minimal "nationwide and worldwide" operations, ante, at 762, n. 20.

Third, the majority's approach creates the incongruous result that an individual defendant whose only contact with a forum State is a one-time visit will be subject to general jurisdiction if served with process during that visit, Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U.S. [773] 604, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990), but a large corporation that owns property, employs workers, and does billions of dollars' worth of business in the State will not be, simply because the corporation has similar contacts elsewhere (though the visiting individual surely does as well).

Finally, it should be obvious that the ultimate effect of the majority's approach will be to shift the risk of loss from multinational corporations to the individuals harmed by their actions. Under the majority's rule, for example, a parent whose child is maimed due to the negligence of a foreign hotel owned by a multinational conglomerate will be unable to hold the hotel to account in a single U.S. court, even if the hotel company has a massive presence in multiple States. See, e.g., Meier v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (C.A.11 2002).^[31] Similarly, a U.S. business that enters into a contract in a foreign country to sell its products to a multinational company there may be unable to seek relief in any U.S. court if the multinational company breaches the contract, even if that company has considerable operations in numerous U.S. forums. See, e.g., Walpex Trading Co. v. Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos, 712 F.Supp. 383 (S.D.N.Y.1989).^[32] Indeed, the majority's approach would preclude the plaintiffs in these examples from seeking recourse anywhere in the United States even if no other judicial system was available to provide relief. I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires these results.

* * *

The Court rules against respondents today on a ground that no court has considered in the history of this case, that this Court did not grant certiorari to decide, and that Daimler raised only in a footnote of its brief. In doing so, the Court adopts a new rule of constitutional law that is unmoored from decades of precedent. Because I would reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision on the narrower ground that the exercise of jurisdiction over Daimler would be unreasonable in any event, I respectfully concur in the judgment only.

[1] One plaintiff is a resident of Argentina and a citizen of Chile; all other plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Argentina.

[2] Daimler was restructured in 2007 and is now known as Daimler AG. No party contends that any postsuit corporate reorganization bears on our disposition of this case. This opinion refers to members of the Daimler corporate family by the names current at the time plaintiffs filed suit.

[3] At times relevant to this suit, MBUSA was wholly owned by Daimler-Chrysler North America Holding Corporation, a Daimler subsidiary.

[4] International Shoe was an action by the State of Washington to collect payments to the State's unemployment fund. Liability for the payments rested on in-state activities of resident sales solicitors engaged by the corporation to promote its wares in Washington. See 326 U.S., at 313-314, 66 S.Ct. 154.

[5] Colloquy at oral argument illustrated the respective provinces of general and specific jurisdiction over persons. Two hypothetical scenarios were posed: First, if a California plaintiff, injured in a California accident involving a Daimler-manufactured vehicle, sued Daimler in California court alleging that the vehicle was defectively designed, that court's adjudicatory authority would be premised on specific jurisdiction. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11 (Daimler's counsel acknowledged that specific jurisdiction "may well be ... available" in such a case, depending on whether Daimler purposefully availed itself of the forum). Second, if a similar accident took place in Poland and injured Polish plaintiffs sued Daimler in California court, the question would be one of general jurisdiction. See id., at 29 (on plaintiffs' view, Daimler would be amenable to such a suit in California).

[6] See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) ("The immediate effect of [International Shoe's] departure from Pennoyer's conceptual apparatus was to increase the ability of the state courts to obtain personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants."); McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) ("[A] trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents."). For an early codification, see Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act § 1.02 (describing jurisdiction based on "[e]nduring [r]elationship" to encompass a person's domicile or a corporation's place of incorporation or principal place of business, and providing that "any ... claim for relief" may be brought in such a place), § 1.03 (describing jurisdiction "[b]ased upon [c]onduct," limited to claims arising from the enumerated acts, e.g., "transacting any business in th[e] state," "contracting to supply services or things in th[e] state," or "causing tortious injury by an act or omission in th[e] state"), 9B U.L.A. 308, 310 (1966).

[7] See, e.g., Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (specific jurisdiction may lie over a foreign defendant that places a product into the "stream of commerce" while also "designing the product for the market in the forum State, advertising in the forum State, establishing channels for providing regular advice to customers in the forum State, or marketing the product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State"); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) ("[I]f the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor such as Audi or Volkswagen is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others."); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (California court had specific jurisdiction to hear suit brought by California plaintiff where Florida-based publisher of a newspaper having its largest circulation in California published an article allegedly defaming the complaining Californian; under those circumstances, defendants "must `reasonably anticipate being haled into [a California] court'"); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780-781, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (New York resident may maintain suit for libel in New Hampshire state court against California-based magazine that sold 10,000 to 15,000 copies in New Hampshire each month; as long as the defendant "continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market," it could reasonably be expected to answer a libel suit there).

[8] Selectively referring to the trial court record in Perkins (as summarized in an opinion of the intermediate appellate court), Justice SOTOMAYOR posits that Benguet may have had extensive operations in places other than Ohio. See post, at 769-770, n. 8 (opinion concurring in judgment) ("By the time the suit [in Perkins] was commenced, the company had resumed its considerable operations in the Philippines," "rebuilding its properties there" and "purchasing machinery, supplies and equipment." (internal quotation marks omitted)). See also post, at 767, n. 5 (many of the corporation's "key management decisions" were made by the out-of-state purchasing agent and chief of staff). Justice SOTOMAYOR's account overlooks this Court's opinion in Perkins and the point on which that opinion turned: All of Benguet's activities were directed by the company's president from within Ohio. See Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-448, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952) (company's Philippine mining operations "were completely halted during the occupation ... by the Japanese"; and the company's president, from his Ohio office, "supervised policies dealing with the rehabilitation of the corporation's properties in the Philippines and ... dispatched funds to cover purchases of machinery for such rehabilitation"). On another day, Justice SOTOMAYOR joined a unanimous Court in recognizing: "To the extent that the company was conducting any business during and immediately after the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, it was doing so in Ohio...." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2856, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). Given the wartime circumstances, Ohio could be considered "a surrogate for the place of incorporation or head office." von Mehren & Trautman 1144. See also ibid. (Perkins "should be regarded as a decision on its exceptional facts, not as a significant reaffirmation of obsolescing notions of general jurisdiction" based on nothing more than a corporation's "doing business" in a forum).

Justice SOTOMAYOR emphasizes Perkins' statement that Benguet's Ohio contacts, while "continuous and systematic," were but a "limited ... part of its general business." 342 U.S., at 438, 72 S.Ct. 413. Describing the company's "wartime activities" as "necessarily limited," id., at 448, 72 S.Ct. 413, however, this Court had in mind the diminution in operations resulting from the Japanese occupation and the ensuing shutdown of the company's Philippine mines. No fair reader of the full opinion in Perkins could conclude that the Court meant to convey anything other than that Ohio was the center of the corporation's wartime activities. But cf. post, at 768 ("If anything, [Perkins] intimated that the defendant's Ohio contacts were not substantial in comparison to its contacts elsewhere.").

[9] See generally von Mehren & Trautman 1177-1179. See also Twitchell, The Myth of General Jurisdiction, 101 Harv. L.Rev. 610, 676 (1988) ("[W]e do not need to justify broad exercises of dispute-blind jurisdiction unless our interpretation of the scope of specific jurisdiction unreasonably limits state authority over nonresident defendants."); Borchers, The Problem With General Jurisdiction, 2001 U. Chi. Legal Forum 119, 139 ("[G]eneral jurisdiction exists as an imperfect safety valve that sometimes allows plaintiffs access to a reasonable forum in cases when specific jurisdiction would deny it.").

[10] Remarkably, Justice SOTOMAYOR treats specific jurisdiction as though it were barely there. Given the many decades in which specific jurisdiction has flourished, it would be hard to conjure up an example of the "deep injustice" Justice SOTOMAYOR predicts as a consequence of our holding that California is not an all-purpose forum for suits against Daimler. Post, at 771. Justice SOTOMAYOR identifies "the concept of reciprocal fairness" as the "touchstone principle of due process in this field." Post, at 768 (citing International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154). She overlooks, however, that in the very passage of International Shoe on which she relies, the Court left no doubt that it was addressing specific — not general — jurisdiction. See id., at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154 ("The exercise of th[e] privilege [of conducting corporate activities within a State] may give rise to obligations, and, so far as those obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state, a procedure which requires the corporation to respond to a suit brought to enforce them can, in most instances, hardly be said to be undue." (emphasis added)).

[11] As the Court made plain in Goodyear and repeats here, general jurisdiction requires affiliations "so `continuous and systematic' as to render [the foreign corporation] essentially at home in the forum State." 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2851, i.e., comparable to a domestic enterprise in that State.

[12] MBUSA is not a defendant in this case.

[13] Agency relationships, we have recognized, may be relevant to the existence of specific jurisdiction. "[T]he corporate personality," International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), observed, "is a fiction, although a fiction intended to be acted upon as though it were a fact." Id., at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. See generally 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 30, p. 30 (Supp.2012-2013) ("A corporation is a distinct legal entity that can act only through its agents."). As such, a corporation can purposefully avail itself of a forum by directing its agents or distributors to take action there. See, e.g., Asahi, 480 U.S., at 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (defendant's act of "marketing [a] product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State" may amount to purposeful availment); International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154 ("the commission of some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state" may sometimes "be deemed sufficient to render the corporation liable to suit" on related claims). See also Brief for Petitioner 24 (acknowledging that "an agency relationship may be sufficient in some circumstances to give rise to specific jurisdiction"). It does not inevitably follow, however, that similar reasoning applies to general jurisdiction. Cf. Goodyear, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2855 (faulting analysis that "elided the essential difference between case-specific and all-purpose (general) jurisdiction").

[14] Indeed, plaintiffs do not defend this aspect of the Ninth Circuit's analysis. See Brief for Respondents 39, n. 18 ("We do not believe that this gloss is particularly helpful.").

[15] The Ninth Circuit's agency analysis also looked to whether the parent enjoys "the right to substantially control" the subsidiary's activities. Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909, 924 (2011). The Court of Appeals found the requisite "control" demonstrated by the General Distributor Agreement between Daimler and MBUSA, which gives Daimler the right to oversee certain of MBUSA's operations, even though that agreement expressly disavowed the creation of any agency relationship. Thus grounded, the separate inquiry into control hardly curtails the overbreadth of the Ninth Circuit's agency holding.

[16] By addressing this point, Justice SOTOMAYOR asserts, we have strayed from the question on which we granted certiorari to decide an issue not argued below. Post, at 765-766. That assertion is doubly flawed. First, the question on which we granted certiorari, as stated in Daimler's petition, is "whether it violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum State." Pet. for Cert. i. That question fairly encompasses an inquiry into whether, in light of Goodyear, Daimler can be considered at home in California based on MBUSA's in-state activities. See also this Court's Rule 14.1(a) (a party's statement of the question presented "is deemed to comprise every subsidiary question fairly included therein"). Moreover, both in the Ninth Circuit, see, e.g., Brief for Federation of German Industries et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 07-15386(CA9), p. 3, and in this Court, see, e.g., U.S. Brief 13-18; Brief for Chamber of Commerce of United States of America et al. as Amici Curiae 6-23; Brief for Lea Brilmayer as Amica Curiae 10-12, amici in support of Daimler homed in on the insufficiency of Daimler's California contacts for general jurisdiction purposes. In short, and in light of our pathmarking opinion in Goodyear, we perceive no unfairness in deciding today that California is not an all-purpose forum for claims against Daimler.

[17] International Shoe also recognized, as noted above, see supra, at 753-754, that "some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state ..., because of their nature and quality and the circumstances of their commission, may be deemed sufficient to render the corporation liable to suit." 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154.

[18] Plaintiffs emphasize two decisions, Barrow S.S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 18 S.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed. 964 (1898), and Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259, 115 N.E. 915 (1917) (Cardozo, J.), both cited in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), just after the statement that a corporation's continuous operations in-state may suffice to establish general jurisdiction. Id., at 446, and n. 6, 72 S.Ct. 413. See also International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154 (citing Tauza). Barrow and Tauza indeed upheld the exercise of general jurisdiction based on the presence of a local office, which signaled that the corporation was "doing business" in the forum. Perkins' unadorned citations to these cases, both decided in the era dominated by Pennoyer's territorial thinking, see supra, at 753-754, should not attract heavy reliance today. See generally Feder, Goodyear, "Home," and the Uncertain Future of Doing Business Jurisdiction, 63 S.C. L.Rev. 671 (2012) (questioning whether "doing business" should persist as a basis for general jurisdiction).

[19] We do not foreclose the possibility that in an exceptional case, see, e.g., Perkins, described supra, at 755-757, and n. 8, a corporation's operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State. But this case presents no occasion to explore that question, because Daimler's activities in California plainly do not approach that level. It is one thing to hold a corporation answerable for operations in the forum State, see infra, at 763, quite another to expose it to suit on claims having no connection whatever to the forum State.

[20] To clarify in light of Justice SOTOMAYOR's opinion concurring in the judgment, the general jurisdiction inquiry does not "focu[s] solely on the magnitude of the defendant's in-state contacts." Post, at 767. General jurisdiction instead calls for an appraisal of a corporation's activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide. A corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them. Otherwise, "at home" would be synonymous with "doing business" tests framed before specific jurisdiction evolved in the United States. See von Mehren & Trautman 1142-1144. Nothing in International Shoe and its progeny suggests that "a particular quantum of local activity" should give a State authority over a "far larger quantum of ... activity" having no connection to any in-state activity. Feder, supra, at 694.

Justice SOTOMAYOR would reach the same result, but for a different reason. Rather than concluding that Daimler is not at home in California, Justice SOTOMAYOR would hold that the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler would be unreasonable "in the unique circumstances of this case." Post, at 763. In other words, she favors a resolution fit for this day and case only. True, a multipronged reasonableness check was articulated in Asahi, 480 U.S., at 113-114, 107 S.Ct. 1026, but not as a free-floating test. Instead, the check was to be essayed when specific jurisdiction is at issue. See also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-478, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). First, a court is to determine whether the connection between the forum and the episode-in-suit could justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Then, in a second step, the court is to consider several additional factors to assess the reasonableness of entertaining the case. When a corporation is genuinely at home in the forum State, however, any second-step inquiry would be superfluous.

Justice SOTOMAYOR fears that our holding will "lead to greater unpredictability by radically expanding the scope of jurisdictional discovery." Post, at 770-771. But it is hard to see why much in the way of discovery would be needed to determine where a corporation is at home. Justice SOTOMAYOR's proposal to import Asahi's "reasonableness" check into the general jurisdiction determination, on the other hand, would indeed compound the jurisdictional inquiry. The reasonableness factors identified in Asahi include "the burden on the defendant," "the interests of the forum State," "the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief," "the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies," "the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies," and, in the international context, "the procedural and substantive policies of other nations whose interests are affected by the assertion of jurisdiction." 480 U.S., at 113-115, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (some internal quotation marks omitted). Imposing such a checklist in cases of general jurisdiction would hardly promote the efficient disposition of an issue that should be resolved expeditiously at the outset of litigation.

[21] The Courts of Appeals have uniformly held that the reasonableness prong does in fact apply in the general jurisdiction context. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 573 (C.A.2 1996) ("[E]very circuit that has considered the question has held, implicitly or explicitly, that the reasonableness inquiry is applicable to all questions of personal jurisdiction, general or specific"); see also, e.g., Lakin v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 348 F.3d 704, 713 (C.A.8 2003); Base Metal Trading, Ltd. v. OJSC "Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory," 283 F.3d 208, 213-214 (C.A.4 2002); Trierweiler v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523, 1533 (C.A.10 1996); Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Navigation Co., 1 F.3d 848, 851, n. 2 (C.A.9 1993); Donatelli v. National Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 465 (C.A.1 1990); Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 377 (C.A.5 1987). Without the benefit of a single page of briefing on the issue, the majority casually adds each of these cases to the mounting list of decisions jettisoned as a consequence of today's ruling. See ante, at 762, n. 20.

[22] While our decisions rejecting the exercise of personal jurisdiction have typically done so under the minimum-contacts prong, we have never required that prong to be decided first. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 121, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (rejecting personal jurisdiction under the reasonableness prong and declining to consider the minimum-contacts prong because doing so would not be "necessary"). And although the majority frets that deciding this case on the reasonableness ground would be "a resolution fit for this day and case only," ante, at 762, n. 20, I do not understand our constitutional duty to require otherwise.

[23] The majority appears to suggest that Daimler may have presented the argument in its petition for rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit. See ante, at 752 (stating that Daimler "urg[ed] that the exercise of personal jurisdiction ... could not be reconciled with this Court's decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)"). But Daimler's petition for rehearing did not argue what the Court holds today. The Court holds that Daimler's California contacts would be insufficient for general jurisdiction even assuming that MBUSA's contacts may be attributed to Daimler. Daimler's rehearing petition made a distinct argument — that attribution of MBUSA's contacts should not be permitted under an "`agency' theory" because doing so would "rais[e] significant constitutional concerns" under Goodyear. Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc in No. 07-15386(CA9), p. 9.

[24] See DaimlerChrysler, Innovations for our Customers: Annual Report 2004, p. 22, http://www.daimler.com/Projects/c2c/channel/documents/1364377_2004_DaimlerChrysler_Annual_Report.pdf (as visited on Jan. 8, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).

[25] To be sure, many of Daimler's key management decisions are undoubtedly made by employees outside California. But the same was true in Perkins. See Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Min. Co., 88 Ohio App. 118, 124, 95 N.E.2d 5, 8 (1950) (per curiam) (describing management decisions made by the company's chief of staff in Manila and a purchasing agent in California); see also n. 8, infra.

[26] While Helicopteros formulated the general jurisdiction inquiry as asking whether a foreign defendant possesses "continuous and systematic general business contacts," 466 U.S., at 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, the majority correctly notes, ante, at 760, that International Shoe used the phrase "continuous and systematic" in the context of discussing specific jurisdiction, 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S.Ct. 154. But the majority recognizes that International Shoe separately described the type of contacts needed for general jurisdiction as "continuous corporate operations" that are "so substantial" as to justify suit on unrelated causes of action. Id., at 318, 66 S.Ct. 154. It is unclear why our precedents departed from International Shoe's "continuous and substantial" formulation in favor of the "continuous and systematic" formulation, but the majority does not contend — nor do I perceive — that there is a material difference between the two.

[27] The majority suggests that I misinterpret language in Perkins that I do not even cite. Ante, at 756, n. 8. The majority is quite correct that it has found a sentence in Perkins that does not address whether most of the Philippine corporation's activities took place outside of Ohio. See ante, at 756, n. 8 (noting that Perkins described the company's "wartime activities" as "necessarily limited," 342 U.S., at 448, 72 S.Ct. 413). That is why I did not mention it. I instead rely on a sentence in Perkins' opening paragraph: "The [Philippine] corporation has been carrying on in Ohio a continuous and systematic, but limited, part of its general business." Id., at 438, 72 S.Ct. 413. That sentence obviously does convey that most of the corporation's activities occurred in "places other than Ohio," ante, at 756, n. 8. This is not surprising given that the company's Ohio contacts involved a single officer working from a home office, while its non-Ohio contacts included significant mining properties and machinery operated throughout the Philippines, Philippine employees (including a chief of staff), a purchasing agent based in California, and board of directors meetings held in Washington, New York, and San Francisco. Perkins, 88 Ohio App., at 123-124, 95 N.E.2d, at 8; see also n. 8, infra.

[28] The majority views the phrase "at home" as serving a different purpose — that of requiring a comparison between a defendant's in-state and out-of-state contacts. Ante, at 761, n. 20. That cannot be the correct understanding though, because among other things it would cast grave doubt on Perkins — a case that Goodyear pointed to as an exemplar of general jurisdiction, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S.Ct., at 2855-2856. For if Perkins had applied the majority's newly minted proportionality test, it would have come out the other way.

The majority apparently thinks that the Philippine corporate defendant in Perkins did not have meaningful operations in places other than Ohio. See ante, at 755-756, and n. 8. But one cannot get past the second sentence of Perkins before realizing that is wrong. That sentence reads: "The corporation has been carrying on in Ohio a continuous and systematic, but limited, part of its general business." 342 U.S., at 438, 72 S.Ct. 413. Indeed, the facts of the case set forth by the Ohio Court of Appeals show just how "limited" the company's Ohio contacts — which included a single officer keeping files and managing affairs from his Ohio home office — were in comparison with its "general business" operations elsewhere. By the time the suit was commenced, the company had resumed its considerable mining operations in the Philippines, "`rebuilding its properties'" there and purchasing "`machinery, supplies and equipment.'" 88 Ohio App., at 123-124, 95 N.E.2d, at 8. Moreover, the company employed key managers in other forums, including a purchasing agent in San Francisco and a chief of staff in the Philippines. Id., at 124, 95 N.E.2d, at 8. The San Francisco purchasing agent negotiated the purchase of the company's machinery and supplies "`on the direction of the Company's Chief of Staff in Manila,'" ibid., a fact that squarely refutes the majority's assertion that "[a]ll of Benguet's activities were directed by the company's president from within Ohio," ante, at 756, n. 8. And the vast majority of the company's board of directors meetings took place outside Ohio, in locations such as Washington, New York, and San Francisco. 88 Ohio App., at 125, 95 N.E.2d, at 8.

In light of these facts, it is all but impossible to reconcile the result in Perkins with the proportionality test the majority announces today. Goodyear's use of the phrase "at home" is thus better understood to require the same general jurisdiction inquiry that Perkins required: An out-of-state business must have the kind of continuous and substantial in-state presence that a parallel local company would have.

[29] I accept at face value the majority's declaration that general jurisdiction is not limited to a corporation's place of incorporation and principal place of business because "a corporation's operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business may be so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in the State." Ante, at 761, n. 19; see also ante, at 761. Were that not so, our analysis of the defendants' in-state contacts in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984), and Goodyear would have been irrelevant, as none of the defendants in those cases was sued in its place of incorporation or principal place of business.

[30] States will of course continue to exercise specific jurisdiction in many cases, but we have never held that to be the outer limit of the States' authority under the Due Process Clause. That is because the two forms of jurisdiction address different concerns. Whereas specific jurisdiction focuses on the relationship between a defendant's challenged conduct and the forum State, general jurisdiction focuses on the defendant's substantial presence in the State irrespective of the location of the challenged conduct.

[31] See also, e.g., Woods v. Nova Companies Belize Ltd., 739 So.2d 617, 620-621 (Fla.App. 1999) (estate of decedent killed in an overseas plane crash permitted to sue responsible Belizean corporate defendant in Florida courts, rather than Belizean courts, based on defendant's continuous and systematic business contacts in Florida).

[32] The present case and the examples posited involve foreign corporate defendants, but the principle announced by the majority would apply equally to preclude general jurisdiction over a U.S. company that is incorporated and has its principal place of business in another U.S. State. Under the majority's rule, for example, a General Motors autoworker who retires to Florida would be unable to sue GM in that State for disabilities that develop from the retiree's labor at a Michigan parts plant, even though GM undertakes considerable business operations in Florida. See Twitchell, The Myth of General Jurisdiction, 101 Harv. L.Rev. 610, 670 (1988).

[703] John Bernard Cashion, John Bernard Cashion, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

J. Patrick Craddock, Herbert F. Stride, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., and Daniel J. Olofsson, Daniel J. Olofsson & Associates, Dolton, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HART, District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert Sommers is a resident of Indiana. Defendant 13300 Brandon Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. It owns and operates the Beacon Tavern located in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Daniel Funduck is an Illinois resident. There is complete diversity of citizenship. Sommers alleges that during the evening and morning of February 22-23, 1987, the Beacon Tavern served alcoholic beverages to Funduck though it knew or should have known he was intoxicated. As a proximate result of his intoxication, Funduck had an automobile accident in Hammond, Indiana. Sommers, who was a passenger in Funduck's automobile, was injured in that accident. Defendant Brandon has moved to dismiss the claims against it on the grounds that Illinois common law does not recognize such a claim and that the Illinois statute of limitations has run on any statutory claim.

It is clear that under the common law of Illinois and the Illinois Dram Shop Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 43, ¶ 135, there is no claim for injuries sustained in an automobile accident in another state as a result of an Illinois tavernkeeper selling alcoholic beverages. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 43, ¶ 135(a); Linnabery v. DePauw, 695 F.Supp. 411, 412 (C.D.Ill.1988); Wimmer v. Koenigseder, 108 Ill.2d 435, 484 N.E.2d 1088, 1091-92 (1985); Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665, V.F.W., 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657, 660-61 (1969). Plaintiff, however, argues that Indiana law applies to this case. In a diversity case, this court applies the choice of law rules of the state in which it is located. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Hager v. National Union Electric Co., 854 F.2d 259, 261 (7th Cir.1988).

In Wimmer, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a Wisconsin tavernkeeper was not liable for an automobile accident in Illinois in which one of his customers was involved. Since the statutes and common law of both Illinois and Wisconsin permitted no recovery, the court did not have to resolve any choice of law issue. See Wimmer, 484 N.E.2d at 1091-93.^[1] In Graham, the sale of liquor occurred in Illinois and the accident in Wisconsin. The choice of law question was also avoided in that case since neither state's laws created liability. See Graham, 248 N.E.2d at 659. Two Illinois Appellate Court cases and a Seventh Circuit case, however, have addressed the choice of law question. Those cases all indicate that in the present type of case, choice of law is the determinative issue. In Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, 269 F.2d 322 (7th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 903, 80 S.Ct. 611, 4 [704] L.Ed.2d 554 (1960), a patron of an Illinois bar was in an accident in Michigan. The Seventh Circuit held that neither state would apply its dram shop act extraterritorially. Id. at 324. Applying the rule of lex loci delecti, the Seventh Circuit held that an Illinois court would apply Michigan's common law. Id. at 325. The Seventh Circuit concluded the plaintiff had a cause of action under Michigan's common law. Id. at 326. Colligan v. Cousar, 38 Ill.App. 2d 392, 187 N.E.2d 292 (1963), involved the same factual situation as the present case. Following Waynick, the Illinois Appellate Court applied lex loci delecti and determined that Indiana common law would apply. 187 N.E.2d at 296. Since the parties had not shown what Indiana law was, the court applied the presumption that Indiana's common law was the same as Illinois's and determined that Illinois^[2] —and hence Indiana—provided a common law cause of action under the circumstances of the case. Id. at 296-97. Liff v. Haezbroeck, 51 Ill.App.2d 70, 200 N.E.2d 525 (1964), involved a liquor sale in Illinois and an accident in Iowa. The accident victim's wife would have had a claim under the Dram Shop Act of Iowa, Iowa Code § 129.2, if it applied. Liff, 200 N.E.2d at 526. The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with Waynick and Colligan that the common law of the site of the accident would apply. 200 N.E.2d at 527. The court held, however, that Waynick and Colligan were limited to common law causes of action and therefore the victim's wife had no cognizable claim based on the Dram Shop Act of Iowa. 200 N.E.2d at 527. The court did not expressly state its reasoning in reaching this final conclusion. Presumably, it had one of two reasons. One possibility is that it believed statutory law was not adopted in applying choice of law principles. The other is that it believed that Iowa, like Illinois at that time, would not apply its dram shop act to sales outside Iowa.

In applying Illinois law, this court should follow the Supreme Court of Illinois. It should also follow the Illinois Appellate Court "unless there is `good reason to believe that the state's highest court would reject' the decision of the intermediate court." Peeler v. Village of Kingston Mines, 862 F.2d 135, 137 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Phelps v. Sherwood Industries, 836 F.2d 296, 306 (7th Cir.1987)). See also Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 1428 n. 3, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988). This court is also bound by the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of Illinois law unless subsequent Illinois decisions are to the contrary or other subsequent cases have undercut the continuing vitality of the case. See United States v. Burke, 781 F.2d 1234, 1239 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985); Collins Co., Ltd. v. Carboline Co., 837 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir.1988).

Waynick, Colligan, and Liff continue to be authority for using choice of law principles to determine Brandon's liability in this case. Waynick's and Colligan's reliance on lex loci delecti in determining which state's substantive law to apply, however, is no longer the guiding principle in Illinois. Illinois now follows the "most significant relationship" test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971). Pittway Corp. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 641 F.2d 524, 527 (7th Cir.1981). Illinois applies a presumption that the state where the injury occurred is the law to choose unless another state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence or parties. Id.; Restatement § 146. In determining which state has a more significant relationship, four factors are considered: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; and (d) the place where the relationship between the parties is centered. Pittway, 641 F.2d at 526; Restatement § 145(2). These four factors are not to be mechanically applied. They are [705] to be considered on a case-by-case basis with respect to the particular issue involved, the character of the tort, and the relevant policies of the interested states. Pittway, 641 F.2d at 526-27. The general guiding principles are: "(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied." Restatement § 6(2).

Courts that have applied the significant relationship test, or other similar tests, in the context of dram shop liability have been split as to whether to apply the law of the place of sale or the place of the accident. See Pardey v. Boulevard Billiard Club, 518 A.2d 1349, 1352 (R.I.1986) (applying law of place of sale); Patton v. Carnrike, 510 F.Supp. 625, 628 (N.D.N.Y.1981) (same); Trapp v. 4-10 Investment Corp., 424 F.2d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.1970) (same); Carver v. Schafer, 647 S.W.2d 570, 578 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (applying law of place of accident); Blamey v. Brown, 270 N.W.2d 884, 890-91 (Minn.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1070, 100 S.Ct. 1013, 62 L.Ed.2d 751 (1980) (same);^[3] Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, 725, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 859, 97 S.Ct. 159, 50 L.Ed.2d 136 (1976) (same); Annotation, Choice of Law as to Liability of Liquor Seller for Injuries Caused by Intoxicated Person, 2 A.L.R.4th 952, 961-63 (1980). These cases have generally considered the particular facts and circumstances involved and the particular policies of the states involved. Perhaps more significantly, all those cases that have applied the law of the place of the accident were cases where the law of the place of sale provided for no liability whereas the place of the accident provided a cause of action. Those cases also involved application of the common law of the place of the accident, not the application of a statute.

Consideration of the four factors separate from the guiding principles produces an equal balance. The place of injury being Indiana is equally balanced by Illinois being the place of the allegedly improper conduct of Brandon. Sommers's residency in Indiana is equally balanced by Brandon's incorporation and principal place of business in Illinois. The parties had no direct relationship so their relationship cannot be said to be centered in either state. Viewed in light of the guiding principles, however, the balance favors applying Indiana law.

Where, as in the present case, the place of injury is a fortuitous event, that factor is given less weight. See Pardey, 518 A.2d at 1352; Patton, 510 F.Supp. at 628; Restatement § 145 comment e. Still, Indiana has a strong interest in the events since a resident of its state was injured in Indiana. Indiana has an interest in both protecting the well-being of its residents and in ensuring that injured residents can continue to pay their creditors. See Carver, 647 S.W. 2d at 577. Illinois, on the other hand, has an interest in protecting its tavern owners from excessive judgments. See id. While Illinois limits the liability of its tavern owners, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 43, ¶ 135(a), it does not immunize them from liability. Compare Restatement § 146 comment e. It is the policy of Illinois that its tavernkeepers be held liable for injuries caused by patrons whom the tavernkeepers cause to be intoxicated. To the extent Indiana law would make Brandon liable, applying Indiana law would be consistent with Illinois policy. See Pardey, 518 A.2d at 1352. Cf. Bernhard, 128 Cal.Rptr. at 221, 546 P.2d at 725. Also, that Illinois applies its Dram Shop Act to sales outside Illinois that cause injury in Illinois, implies that Illinois would approve of other states imposing liability for injuries occurring in the other states [706] but caused by sales of alcoholic beverages in Illinois. Additionally, the Beacon Tavern is located near the Illinois-Indiana border.^[4] Thus, it would not be a surprise to defendant that some of its patrons travel in Indiana after drinking at the tavern. The application of Indiana law would not be unexpected or unpredictable.^[5] See Carver, 647 S.W.2d at 578; Bernhard, 128 Cal. Rptr. at 221, 546 P.2d at 725.

For the foregoing reasons, Indiana has the more significant relationship. In any event, there is no sufficient basis for overcoming the presumption that the place of personal injury is determinative. In following Illinois's choice of law rules, this court will apply the substantive law of Indiana to the claim of plaintiff against defendant Brandon.

The question still remains as to whether Indiana law provides a cause of action for plaintiff. Plaintiff cites Picadilly, Inc. v. Colvin, 519 N.E.2d 1217, 1219-20 (Ind. 1988), for the proposition that Indiana provides a common law cause of action for dram shop liability. As Picadilly, 519 N.E. 2d at 1220 n. 1, notes, however, that decision concerns an accident occurring prior to the April 1, 1986 effective date of Ind.Code § 7.X-X-XX-XX.5. The events alleged in the present complaint occurred in February 1987. The new statute essentially codified the existing common law. See Todd & Yosha, Dram Shop Liability in Indiana: Analysis of Ashlock v. Norris & the New Civil Statute, 19 Ind.L.Rev. 417, 419-23 (1986). No cases have yet interpreted that statute, but there is nothing in it that indicates it is limited to sales in Indiana.^[6] The statute simply refers to "A person who furnishes an alcoholic beverage." Ind. Code § 7.X-X-XX-XX.5(b) (emphasis added).

Unlike the continuing law in Illinois, there is a modern trend to apply dram shop acts extraterritorially as regards sales in the state and accidents outside the state. See Pardey, 518 A.2d at 1352. A trend toward applying dram shop acts to accidents within the state, but regarding sales outside the state, has not appeared. See Thoring v. Bottonsek, 350 N.W.2d 586, 589-91 (N.D.1984). The 1986 amendment to Illinois's act, however, provides for such liability. See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 43, ¶ 135(a). Also, the modern trend has been to apply common law liability under such circumstances and that is what was done in Waynick, supra, and Colligan, supra. The modern trend has also been toward choosing the law that would impose liability. Since Indiana's statute applies to any "person who furnishes", not just to regulation of taverns, and since it is a codification of the common law, it is believed that Indiana would apply § 7.X-X-XX-XX.5(b) to sales outside Indiana and accidents in Indiana. Also, to the extent Indiana law is uncertain, the court should consider Illinois law. Colligan, 187 N.E.2d at 296. Illinois clearly provides that its act applies to sales outside Illinois and accidents in Illinois. It is therefore held that § 7.X-X-XX-XX.5 applies to Sommer's claim against Brandon. Alternatively, if that statute does not apply to the claim, then the common law of Indiana has not been supplanted by statute. Sommers would then have a common law cause of action and it is believed Indiana would follow the modern trend of holding there is a common law cause of action for sales outside the state where the accident occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, it is held that Sommer's claim against Brandon is governed by the statutory law of Indiana, in particular Ind.Code § 7.X-X-XX-XX.5.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant 13300 Brandon Corporation's motion to dismiss is denied.

[707] (2) Defendant 13300 Brandon Corporation shall answer the complaint by May 23, 1989.

(3) Discovery is to be completed by September 7, 1989.

(4) A status hearing is set for June 7, 1989 at 9:15 a.m.

---------

[1] Effective September 12, 1986, § 135(a) was amended to expressly state, consistent with prior court construction, that it applies only to injuries occurring within Illinois. It was also amended to state that it applies to sales of alcohol both "within or without the territorial limits" of Illinois as long as the injury occurs within Illinois. Thus, Wimmer was effectively overruled as regards accidents occurring after the effective date of the amendment.

[2] Wimmer states that Colligan's statement of the common law of Illinois is "obsolete." Wimmer, 484 N.E.2d at 1092. This criticism of Colligan does not go to the issue of whether choice of law is the proper approach to take. The Illinois common law of dram shop liability is not at issue in the case sub judice.

[3] In a subsequent case involving similar facts, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Blamey and held there was no personal jurisdiction. West American Insurance Co. v. Westin, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 676 (Minn.1983). West American does not directly address choice of law, though it implicitly questions Blamey's choice of law conclusion. See Thoring v. Bottonsek, 350 N.W.2d 586, 590-91 (N.D.1984).

[4] Plaintiff alleges the tavern is located at 13300 South Brandon in Chicago. The court takes judicial notice that this address is in southeastern Chicago near the Indiana border.

[5] In Pardey, 518 A.2d at 1352, the court took the view that applying the law of the place of sale allowed for predictability and consistency. But even if this court applies Illinois law, there would not be consistency. Under § 135, there would be possible liability if an accident occurred in Illinois, but no liability if it occurred outside Illinois.

[6] Indiana cases on the common law tort also do not address the issue of sales outside Indiana.

[587] Bjella, Neff, Rathert, Wahl & Eiken, Williston, for plaintiff and appellee; argued by William M. McKechnie, Williston.

Zuger & Bucklin, Bismarck, for defendants and appellants; argued by Patrick J. Ward, Bismarck, Lyle W. Kirmis, Bismarck, on brief.

PEDERSON, Justice.

This wrongful death action is before us pursuant to Rule 54(b), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.^[1] Defendant Lenny's Bar (Lenny's) appeals from the trial court's partial summary judgment and order, wherein the court concluded as a matter of law that it had personal jurisdiction over Lenny's and that North Dakota's dram shop act as codified at § 5-01-06, North Dakota Century Code, can be applied to assess liability against a Montana bar. Lenny's contends that as a matter of law it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota for this state to assert personal jurisdiction under the long-arm provisions of Rule 4(b), NDRCivP. Lenny's also asserts that North Dakota's dram shop act has no extraterritorial effect. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that a Montana bar could be liable under North Dakota's dram shop act and that it is unnecessary for us to address the personal jurisdiction issue.

On the evening of September 19, 1980, Michael J. Bottonsek (Bottonsek) and his brother Patrick drove from Williston, North Dakota, to Bainville, Montana with Patty Jean Thoring and Jolene McGillis, ostensibly to celebrate Miss McGillis's birthday. Bainville is a small town about twenty-four miles from Williston and eight miles west of the North Dakota border. Lenny's is owned and operated by Montana residents Earl L. LaCounte and Janice C. LaCounte. It is located in Bainville and is regulated by Montana's licensing and liquor control laws.

At the time material to this action, Montana's legal drinking age was nineteen and North Dakota's was twenty-one. Both Patty Jean Thoring and Jolene McGillis were under twenty-one on September 19, 1980, when some or all members of the Bottonsek party consumed intoxicating beverages at Lenny's.

Returning from Bainville to Williston in the early morning hours of September 20, 1980, Bottonsek drove his vehicle on the wrong side of a divided highway just outside Williston and collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Harold Nehring. Miss Thoring, Miss McGillis and Mr. Nehring all died from the collision. Morris Thoring (Thoring), as personal representative of Patty Jean Thoring's estate and as conservator and guardian of Patty Jean Thoring's minor son, Shawn Michael Thoring, brought this wrongful death action against Bottonsek and Lenny's.

Thoring's complaint alleged that Lenny's was specifically liable under the North Dakota Civil Damage Act, § 5-01-06, NDCC (dram shop act),^[2] as well as under the laws and statutes of Montana and the common law of North Dakota and Montana. Lenny's answer raised several affirmative defenses, [588] among them failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. Lenny's then moved for summary judgment on the issue of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on the issue of the extraterritorial effect of North Dakota's dram shop act. The trial court ruled against Lenny's on both issues and Lenny's appealed to this court. The record on appeal consists of depositions, affidavits and other supporting documents filed with the motion for summary judgment.

It is important to note that while Montana imposes criminal liability on tavern keepers who violate its liquor control laws, it has no statutory provision that imposes civil liability on tavern keepers for injuries that result from furnishing intoxicating beverages to a minor or to a person who is already intoxicated. The Montana Supreme Court has so far declined to fashion a common law liability for tavern keepers or social hosts in dram shop situations.^[3] If we assume that North Dakota has personal jurisdiction over Lenny's, unless our dram shop act has extraterritorial effect, for all intents and purposes Thoring would have no remedy in a North Dakota court. Common law has been superseded by the dram shop act. See § 1-01-06, NDCC. The only way Lenny's could be held liable would be under Montana common law which can only be created by a Montana court.

Can North Dakota's dram shop act be applied beyond our borders to hold a Montana bar owner liable for injuries to North Dakota residents resulting from an automobile accident that occurred in North Dakota? This court has not previously had the opportunity to consider that question. Other jurisdictions have confronted the problem and we may look to their decisions for guidance.

The federal district court in North Dakota has considered the dram shop act in a conflict-type situation, but the real issue in that case concerned choice of law. See Trapp v. 4-10 Investment Corporation, 424 F.2d 1261 (8th Cir.1970). In Trapp, a Fargo liquor store sold beer to Minnesota minors. The purchasers and other minors then consumed the beer at a keg party at a Minnesota lake cottage. One of the minors was shortly thereafter involved in an automobile collision in Moorhead, Minnesota. The court concluded that North Dakota would apply its own dram shop act under the facts present in that case and commented that the result would not contravene the interests or policies of Minnesota, which also had a dram shop act. Id. at [589] 1265. Holding a North Dakota liquor store proprietor liable under North Dakota's dram shop act for injuries sustained in an accident occurring in Minnesota, which would also hold the proprietor liable had the sale occurred in that state, differs considerably from the instant case where the sale took place in Montana, a state which would not impose civil liability on the proprietor.

A general discussion on the extraterritorial application of dram shop acts can be found in the annotation at 2 A.L.R.4th 952 (1980). The annotation does not contain any case where one state's dram shop statute has been applied to hold an out-of-state liquor vendor liable absent a dram shop statute or common law liability in the vendor's state. The parties have not cited such a case and our own research has not revealed any.

When the injury or death occurs outside the state of sale, some jurisdictions refuse to impose liability under the dram shop act of the place of sale even when the place of sale is the forum state. Thus Illinois will not give its dram shop act extraterritorial effect when the sale takes place in Illinois but the injuries are sustained outside Illinois. See, e.g., Waynick v. Chicago's Last Dept. Store, 269 F.2d 322 (7th Cir.1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 903, 80 S.Ct. 611, 4 L.Ed.2d 554 (1960); Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665, V.F.W., 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657 (1969); Butler v. Wittland, 18 Ill.App.2d 578, 153 N.E.2d 106 (1958); Eldridge v. Don Beachcomber, Inc., 342 Ill.App. 151, 95 N.E.2d 512 (1950).

Other courts have held that the dram shop acts of the states where the sales took place determine the liabilities and rights of the parties, even when the injuries are sustained in a state other than the one of sale. Trapp, supra, presumably falls into this category. Those decisions giving apparent extraterritorial effect to the dram shop act of the state where the sale took place mostly did so by abandoning lex loci delicti as a choice of law rule when its application would preclude recovery.^[4] This resulted in applying the law of the state of sale to the vendor rather than in giving that dram shop act extraterritorial effect. See, e.g., Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426 (2d Cir.1964); Osborn v. Borchetta, 20 Conn.Supp. 163, 129 A.2d 238 (1956); Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc., 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365 (1957). Unlike the instant case, in all these cases the state of sale had a dram shop act.

The few cases that have imposed civil liability on a seller of alcoholic beverages in one state for injuries sustained in another state have done so on the basis of common law negligence liability, not on the basis of statutory dram shop liability. See Blamey v. Brown, 270 N.W.2d 884 (Minn.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1070, 100 S.Ct. 1013, 62 L.Ed.2d 751 (1980), and Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 859, 97 S.Ct. 159, 50 L.Ed.2d 136 (1976).

California first imposed dram shop liability based on common law negligence principles in Vesely v. Sager, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623 (1971), a case which did not involve a choice of law situation.

In Bernhard, 128 Cal.Rptr. at 222, 546 P.2d at 726, the California Supreme Court noted that a violation of the California criminal law making it a misdemeanor to sell liquor to intoxicated persons could not be used as a basis for imposing civil liability on a Nevada resident. The court then used the governmental interest analysis approach, which goes beyond significant contacts, to resolve the choice of law issue and applied California common law dram shop liability to hold the Nevada tavern owner liable to a California resident for damages resulting from a California automobile collision. Nevada, like Montana, did not permit recovery from a tavern keeper.

The California Supreme Court later extended the common law dram shop liability [590] to include social hosts and other noncommercial providers of alcoholic beverages. Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 21 Cal.3d 144, 577 P.2d 669, 145 Cal.Rptr. 534 (1978).

Although this liberal extension of common law negligence liability has not been judicially abrogated by the California Supreme Court, it has for all intents and purposes been legislatively overruled, as a California appellate court noted. Cable v. Sahara Tahoe Corporation, 93 Cal.App.3d 386, 155 Cal.Rptr. 770 (1979). The court in Cable refused to allow a California resident recovery from a Nevada corporate tavern keeper for injuries resulting from a Nevada accident. Cable can be factually distinguished from both Bernhard and the instant case because the state of sale and the state of the accident were the same. The opinion is valuable, however, for its extensive discussion of the history of California and Nevada dram shop liability.

The court in Cable noted that the only source of a California policy of protecting California residents injured by intoxicated persons who were sold or furnished alcoholic beverages outside California is the California Supreme Court's statement in Bernhard. The court concluded that the policy statement was expressly repudiated by the California legislature when it amended § 25602 of the Business and Professions Code to eliminate civil liability and § 1714 of the Civil Code to prohibit liability of any social host. Both amendments contained strong statements of intent to nullify the decisions in the Vesely, Bernhard and Coulter cases. Cable, 155 Cal.Rptr. at 773, 777.

The Blamey case, supra, is factually similar to the Thoring situation. Two Minnesota minors drove from the Twin Cities to Hudson, Wisconsin, where they purchased beer at a small neighborhood bar. The bar had no connection with Minnesota other than its proximity to the state border, the interstate highway and the large urban sprawl of metropolitan Minneapolis-St. Paul. After the minors returned to Minnesota the car was involved in a one-car accident. The injured passenger sued the Wisconsin liquor establishment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the nonresident bar owner in Blamey and then imposed liability on the Wisconsin bar owner by finding common law negligence in making an illegal sale. It specifically denied the application of Minnesota's dram shop act to a non-Minnesota vendor. Blamey, 270 N.W.2d at 889-90. Blamey, and its precedent, Anderson v. Luitjens, 311 Minn. 203, 247 N.W.2d 913 (1976), have since been overruled on the personal jurisdiction issue by West American Insurance Company v. Westin, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 676 (Minn.1983).

In West American an eighteen-year-old Minnesota resident drove to a Wisconsin border city bar and on her return was involved in an accident in Minnesota. Minnesota's drinking age was nineteen and Wisconsin's was eighteen. Her insurer settled claims on her behalf and then brought action in Minnesota against the Wisconsin vendor for contribution or indemnity, alleging common law negligence in the making of an illegal sale. The Wisconsin vendor moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the court determined there was no personal jurisdiction it never reached the second issue.

Respect for territoriality and the integrity of state sovereignty, a primary consideration in determining the existence of personal jurisdiction, is also a factor in choice of law determinations. See Blamey, 270 N.W.2d at 890-91. The court in West American did not have to specifically confront the issue of which state's dram shop law applied, but dicta in the opinion substantially weakens Thoring's reliance on that portion of Blamey which has not been overruled. Noting that the difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin dram shop liability meant that Minnesota was the only forum where a remedy was available, the Minnesota Supreme Court said that fact was unfortunate but it was not sufficient [591] to confer jurisdiction upon Minnesota courts. West American, 337 N.W.2d at 681. So, too, it is not sufficient to give North Dakota's dram shop act extraterritorial effect.

A Wisconsin appellate court apparently shares this view and has refused to enforce a Minnesota judgment imposing dram shop liability on a Wisconsin bar for the sale of alcoholic beverages in Wisconsin. The injury-producing accident occurred in Minnesota. Citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), and West American, the Wisconsin court stated that "Minnesota is not entitled to export its public policy to Wisconsin, a coequal sovereign.... The judgment also would no longer be enforced in Minnesota.... Jurisdiction for this judgment was based on Minnesota Supreme Court decisions that have since been overruled." Hennes v. Loch Ness Bar, 117 Wis.2d 397, 344 N.W.2d 205, 206 (1983).

Thoring urges us to follow the rulings of the California Supreme Court in Bernhard and of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Blamey as persuasive authority for extending our dram shop act's application to impose civil liability on a Montana vendor. We decline to do so. Those cases not only imposed liability on the basis of common law negligence rather than on the basis of a dram shop statute, but also specifically disavowed the extraterritorial application of their respective dram shop statutes. Furthermore, the viability of both Bernhard and Blamey is very much in doubt because of subsequent legislative and judicial action.

We conclude that North Dakota's dram shop act as codified at § 5-01-06, NDCC, has no extraterritorial effect under the circumstances here where the sale took place outside of North Dakota, and that the trial court erred when it held as a matter of law that § 5-01-06 applies to Lenny's. Our holding today is strictly limited to the determination that North Dakota's dram shop act applies only to North Dakota vendors. We make no determination regarding the possibility of the Montana court reconsidering its previous rulings.

We recognize that in the usual situation a court must consider whether or not it has jurisdiction before it considers the applicability of a statute. In the instant case, however, our determination that North Dakota's dram shop act applies only to North Dakota vendors is dispositive of the appeal, making it unnecessary for us to reach the issue of personal jurisdiction. As we have stated previously, "questions, the answers to which are not necessary to the determination of a case, need not be considered." Hospital Services v. Brooks, 229 N.W.2d 69, 71 (N.D.1975).

Reversed.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and GIERKE, SAND and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.

[1] Rule 54(b) authorizes the trial court to direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims presented in an action upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.

[2]The language of § 5-01-06, NDCC, in effect at the time this action was commenced is:

"5-01-06. Recovery of damages resulting from intoxication.—Every wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who shall be injured in person, property or means of support by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of intoxication, shall have a right of action against any person who shall have caused such intoxication by disposing, selling, bartering, or giving away alcoholic beverages contrary to statute for all damages sustained."

The section was amended by the 1983 Legislative Assembly to correct sex discriminatory language and to make special reference to the damages to which the survivors are entitled if death results. Those changes do not affect the disposition of this appeal.

[3] A Montana federal district court, in the absence of any controlling Montana Supreme Court authority, held that under the particular circumstances of the case before it, the sale and serving of liquor to an Air Force person in violation of Montana law was a proximate cause of the automobile accident and resulting injuries to the plaintiff passenger. Deeds v. United States, 306 F.Supp. 348 (D.Mont.1969). More recently, the Montana Supreme Court has ignored, distinguished or chosen not to follow the federal district court's example in Deeds. In a wrongful death action against a bar for the death of a 17-year-old girl who drowned in a creek adjacent to a parking lot the court agreed with the bar's contention that the plaintiff could not recover anything because the proximate cause of the girl's death was her voluntary intoxication and failure to exercise due care for her own safety. Folda v. City of Bozeman, 177 Mont. 537, 582 P.2d 767 (1978). The deceased patron's contributory negligence in becoming intoxicated was also held to preclude any possible recovery from the bar owners in Swartzenberger v. Billings Labor Temple, 179 Mont. 145, 586 P.2d 712 (1978), although the court apparently left open the possibility that a bar keeper's serving of intoxicating beverages could constitute negligence per se under some circumstances. In Runge v. Watts, 180 Mont. 91, 589 P.2d 145 (1979), the court held that the sanctions for violations of Montana's liquor laws did not create a civil cause of action in favor of third persons injured as a result of a minor having been furnished alcoholic beverages. While it is arguable that the decision in Runge is limited to situations where social hosts furnish alcoholic beverages to minors, dicta indicates otherwise. The Montana Supreme Court remarked that its recent holdings (in Folda and Swartzenberger) affirmed its statement of the law that "the seller of intoxicant is not liable in tort for the reason that his act is not the efficient cause of the damage. The proximate cause is the act of him who imbibes the liquor." Runge, 589 P.2d at 147, citing Nevin v. Carlasco, 139 Mont. 512, 515-16, 365 P.2d 637, 639 (1961).

[4] This court abandoned "lex loci delicti" and adopted the "significant-contacts" rule in Issendorf v. Olson, 194 N.W.2d 750 (N.D.1972).

[571] James B. Herd, Michael F. Heavey, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward P. Harrison, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

SNYDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, which dismissed appellants' petition for failure to state a cause of action. The petition sought damages for a wrongful death from a tavern keeper who appellants alleged sold drinks to an already intoxicated person, who caused the death of appellants' decedent. In Count III, plaintiffs-appellants relied on the Illinois Dram Shop Act, Ill.Ann. Stat., ch. 43, § 135 (Smith-Hurd 1944, 1982-83 Cum Supp.), and in Count V they asked the court to hold the tavern keeper liable under Missouri common law. The judgment is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part.

Appellants alleged that William M. Schafer was liable to appellant for the negligent operation of his motor vehicle which resulted in the wrongful death of James R. Reifschneider, and that defendants Frances C. Roberts and Michael G. Mehiols were also liable for the wrongful death of Mr. Reifschneider because Mr. Schafer, shortly before the accident, had consumed intoxicating beverages served at taverns owned by Ms. Roberts and Mr. Mehiols, when Mr. Schafer was already intoxicated. Mr. Reifschneider was the spouse of appellant Sue Ann Carver and the father of the minor children who are also appellants. Service of process was never obtained on Mr. Mehiols and he was dismissed from the lawsuit. Appellant reached a settlement with Mr. Schafer. Thus, the only remaining defendant is respondent Roberts, who has not filed a brief with this court.

Appellants charge the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because appellants stated a cause of action under both the Illinois Dram Shop Act and the Missouri common law.

The scope of review of a motion to dismiss requires an appellate court to treat all facts alleged by the petition as true, to construe the allegations favorably to appellants and to determine whether, upon that basis, the petition invokes principles of substantive law. McCoy v. Liberty Foundry Co., 635 S.W.2d 60, 61-62[2, 3] (Mo.App. 1982). "A pleading should not be adjudged insufficient ... if the averments of the petition, accorded every reasonable and fair intendment, state a claim which can call for the invocation of principles of substantive law which may entitle [appellants] to relief." Kersey v. Harbin, 591 S.W.2d 745, 749[3] (Mo.App.1979).

[572] The facts as alleged in appellant's petition may be briefly stated. On the date in question, Schafer, who is a resident of Missouri, drove his automobile into the State of Illinois. While in Illinois, Schafer patronized two taverns where he was served intoxicating liquors. The taverns were known as The Little Dover Inn and The Ten Pin Lounge, owned and operated by respondent Roberts and Michael G. Mehiols, respectively. The service of the intoxicating liquors led to the intoxication of Schafer or added to his previously existing state of intoxication. After imbibing the intoxicating liquors, Schafer returned to the State of Missouri, operating his automobile under the influence of the intoxicating liquors. Appellants' decedent, James R. Reifschneider, a police officer employed by St. Louis County, was struck and killed by the automobile operated by Schafer as Officer Reifschneider was standing on the shoulder of Interstate Highway 270 issuing a traffic violation summons to another motorist.

The only issue is whether appellants have a cause of action for negligence against respondent Roberts. This court holds that they do.

Actionable negligence consists of three elements: a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and an injury to the plaintiff which is caused by the breach of the duty. Nichols v. Blake, 418 S.W.2d 188, 191[5, 6] (Mo.1967).

The first question is whether Roberts, a tavern owner, owed a duty to prevent the death of appellants' decedent. Here the tavern owner, according to the petition, sold alcoholic beverages to a person the tavern owner knew or should have known to be intoxicated. The tavern owner's patron subsequently caused the death of the decedent.

The common law rule was that a tavern owner could not be held liable for injuries to third persons which were caused by an intoxicated patron. The reason usually given was that the injuries were proximately caused by the imbibing of the intoxicating liquor by the patron and not by the sale of the beverages. Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Ark.1965); Garcia v. Hargrove, 46 Wis.2d 724, 176 N.W.2d 566, 568 (Wis.1970); Parsons v. Jow, 480 P.2d 396, 397[1] (Wyo.1971); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors § 553 (1969); 130 A.L.R. 352, 366 (1941).

In the context of the present case, to say that the decedent's death was not proximately caused by the sale of the intoxicating liquor would be the functional equivalent of stating that the tavern owner owed no duty to the decedent. See W.L. Prosser, Law of Torts § 42 (4th Ed.1971). Although stating the issue in terms of duty rather than proximate cause does not resolve the issue, "... it does serve to direct attention to the policy issues which determine the extent of the original obligation ..." Id.

In some states, the common law rule has been abrogated by so called "dram shop acts."^[1] On the other hand, some jurisdictions have declined invitations to hold a tavern owner liable for injuries to a third person caused by an intoxicated patron.^[2]

[573] Missouri has no dram shop act.^[3] The question is whether this court will judicially recognize that a tavern owner owes a duty to third parties to refuse to sell liquor to an intoxicated person.

"The law enjoins upon each individual, in all human activities, the duty to exercise ordinary care ... for the safety of others, and this degree of care appertains to every human act, unless a different degree of care is prescribed by statute." Ward v. City of Portageville, 106 S.W.2d 497, 503[23, 24] (Mo.App.1937). Ordinary care requires the exercise of such precautions as are commensurate with the dangers reasonably to be anticipated under the circumstances. De Mariano v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 340 S.W.2d 735, 743[7-10] (Mo.1960). "The standard of care exacted by the law is an external and objective one ..." Fancher v. Southwest Missouri Truck Center, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 271, 274[3, 4] (Mo.App.1981).

Under the circumstances of the case under review, the question is to what extent is it reasonably to be anticipated that an intoxicated person who is served alcoholic beverages at a tavern will leave there, drive a motor vehicle while still intoxicated, and cause an accident? Travelling by car to and from a tavern is commonplace in current times. Rappaport v. Nichols, supra at 8[7, 8].

Drunken drivers are involved in a large percentage of the fatal automobile accidents in this country. "Drinking is indicated to be a factor in at least half of the fatal motor-vehicle accidents ..." National Safety Council, "Accident Facts," at 52 (1981 edition). Statistics in Missouri also lend credence to the view that the drunken driver is a factor in more than his fair share of the fatal accidents. "In 1981, of the 95,331 accident involved drivers, 10% were reportedly drinking and of the 1,135 fatal accident involved drivers, 20% were reportedly drinking." Mo. Highway and Transportation Department, Division of Maintenance and Traffic, "Missouri State Highway System Traffic Accident Statistics," at 27 (1981 edition).

Indeed, one would have to be a hermit to be unaware of the carnage caused by drunken motorists. The problem was aptly described nearly twenty years ago:

Our highway safety problems have greatly increased. Death and destruction stalk our roads. The peaceful Sunday afternoon family drive through the hills has been abandoned by many as the result of brushes with near death at the hands of half-baked morons drunkenly weaving in and out of traffic at 80 or 90 miles per hour.

Crull v. Gleb, 382 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Mo.App. 1964).

Thus, it is foreseeable that a patron of a tavern would drive an automobile to and from the tavern. It is also foreseeable that a drunken driver would be more likely to be involved in an accident than a sober driver.

Despite the foreseeable consequences of selling intoxicating liquors to an intoxicated purchaser, many jurisdictions refuse to impose upon the tavern owner a common law duty not to sell liquor to a customer who is intoxicated.

One reason for courts refusing to do so is the legislature's failure to alter the old common law rule barring a tavern owner's liability when the legislature has had ample time to consider the question. Felder v. Butler, supra at 499. In Felder v. Butler, the Maryland Court of Appeals noted that thirty years had passed since the common law rule had been stated and that the state legislature had done nothing to change the rule. Id.; see also State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249, 78 A.2d 754 (Md.App.1951).

The old common law rule which imposed no duty on the tavern keeper has never been stated in Missouri. Cf. Skinner v. Hughes, 13 Mo. 440 (1850).

[574] Another reason given for denying a cause of action against a tavern owner is that holding the tavern owner liable would shift the burden of the loss from the intoxicated driver to the dispenser, which result "... is contrary to sound public policy." Olsen v. Copeland, supra at 181. However, the burden would not necessarily shift from the intoxicated driver to the tavern owner. Both parties contributed to the accident; therefore, assuming the negligence of both, they are joint tortfeasors. See Shafir v. Sieben, 233 S.W. 419, 424[10, 11] (Mo. banc 1921). The tavern owner may seek contribution from the drunken driver. See Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Whitehead and Kales Co., 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. banc 1978).

The court in Olsen v. Copeland also raises the point that if the intoxicated driver is financially irresponsible, the dispenser of the alcoholic beverages will bear the entire judgment. "In such a situation the dispenser... will certainly be bearing a burden wholly out of proportion to his culpability." 280 N.W.2d at 181.

What should be emphasized is that if the intoxicated driver is financially irresponsible and the tavern owner is immunized from liability, the burden will be borne by a party completely without fault, i.e., the innocent victim.

The question is not simply whether the dispenser's liability will be greater than his culpability, but rather whether requiring the tavern owner to bear liability will be a more just allocation of the burden than merely leaving the innocent victim to shoulder the loss.

It has also been said that "[t]he imposition of a common law duty of due care would create a situation rife with uncertainty and difficulty. If the commercial vendor is liable for negligence, does the host at a social gathering owe a duty to prospective victims of guests?" Holmes v. Circo, supra at 70 (Neb.1976).

First, this court is not concerned with the question of imposing liability upon hosts at a social gathering. A court does not rule on hypotheticals. Additional arguments may weigh in favor of not imposing liability on "the host of a social gathering." The sole concern is the dispensing of justice and the resolution of conflicts between the parties before the court.

Furthermore, the mere existence of possible legal issues arising out of other conceivable fact situations should not deter this court from finding a right of action belonging to appellants. Resolution of various legal issues on a case by case basis should prove no more difficult in the area of the liability of a dispenser of intoxicating liquors than in other areas of the law of torts.

The courts which have denied recovery have also cited problems of proof, particularly the problems of recognizing when a patron is intoxicated. See, Holmes v. Circo, supra at 70. "A jury of 12 will most likely have 12 different opinions on this question." Olsen v. Copeland, supra at 181. The problems of proof are not any different from those in other negligence cases.

The plaintiff will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the person in question was, at the time, obviously, actually and apparently intoxicated in order to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bartender knew, or should have known, such fact. Furthermore, to be successful upon such a cause of action, the plaintiff would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that serving the additional intoxicating liquor, after the subject person was already obviously, actually and apparently intoxicated, was a contributing proximate cause of the ensuing injuries. Such proof is not outside of the competence of our judicial system.

Lewis v. Wolf, supra at 710.

Finally, most courts that have refused to recognize a cause of action against a tavern owner have stated that this type of case is more suitable for legislative than judicial action. Carr v. Turner, supra at 658[2]; Keaton v. Kroger, Co., supra at 448[5]; Felder v. Butler, supra at 499; Holmes v. Circo, supra at 70[6]; Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., supra at 359; Marchiondo v. [575] Roper, supra; Olsen v. Copeland, supra at 181; Parsons v. Jow, supra at 397-398[3]. Questions of public policy, it is said, are better left to the legislative branch of government. See, e.g., Holmes v. Circo, supra at 70[6]; Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., supra at 359.

The question presented here is arguably one of public policy, but it is also a question of common law negligence which is better resolved by the judiciary considering the long history of the development and refinement of negligence law by the courts.

Although resolution of public policy arguments is primarily a function of the legislature, a court's refusal to decide questions of public policy is a mistaken abdication of the function of a common law judge. "Every important principle which is developed by litigation is in fact and at bottom the result of more or less definitely understood views of public policy; most generally, to be sure, under our practice and traditions, the unconscious result of instinctive preferences and inarticulate convictions, but nonetheless traceable to views of public policy in the last analysis." O.W. Holmes, "The Common Law", 35-36 (1881).

The courts which decline to resolve the competing interests of dispensers and those injured by the dispensers' intoxicated patrons, see Holmes v. Circo, supra at 70[6], mistakenly ignore the role of the judiciary. "What else do courts do but balance competing interests? The law of torts is concerned with the allocation of losses arising out of human activities." Lewis v. Wolf, 596 P.2d at 709.

The public policy of Missouri is that intoxicated persons should not be served alcoholic beverages. Although § 311.310 RSMo. 1978^[4] cannot serve as a basis for liability because respondent Roberts is a resident of Illinois, the statute is indicative of Missouri public policy.

An appellate court of this state has already recognized that violation of a statute which forbids serving liquor to a minor may constitute negligence per se. Sampson v. W.F. Enterprises, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 333, 337[1] (Mo.App.1981); Sampson held that the parents of a minor may recover damages from a tavern owner who served liquor to the minor who died in an automobile accident resulting from the minor's intoxication.

This holding was extended in Nesbitt v. Westport Square, Ltd., 624 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. App.1981), where the court allowed a third party a cause of action against a tavern owner for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor who had been served liquor in the tavern.

The question in the case under review is one of simple negligence rather than of negligence per se; however, neither Sampson nor Nesbitt contains an indication that it is the public policy of this state to insulate tavern owners from civil damage suits.

The public policy of this state is expressed even more fundamentally in the general law of torts. Every person is required to take ordinary care against injuries reasonably to be anticipated. The death of Officer Reifschneider, or of any pedestrian entitled to be on the shoulder of a major thoroughfare, was reasonably to be anticipated in light of Mr. Schafer's allegedly intoxicated state of mind.

The standard of ordinary care imposed a duty upon respondent Roberts to avoid supplying Mr. Schafer with intoxicating liquor once it became apparent that Mr. Schafer was intoxicated. That the standard of ordinary care imposed such a duty upon Ms. Roberts is supported by the well-documented foreseeability of accidents caused by drunken drivers and the statutory policy expressed by § 311.310 RSMo. 1978. Therefore, Count V of appellant's petition stated a cause of action for simple negligence against respondent.

[576] Appellants argue that Count III of their petition was also erroneously dismissed because Count III states a cause of action under the Illinois Dram Shop Act. Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 43, § 135 (Smith-Hurd 1944, 1982-83 Cum.Supp.). Under Illinois law, appellants could recover damages from respondent tavern owner for the wrongful death of appellant's decedent, subject to a $20,000 limit on the amount of the recovery.^[5] No such limitation has been imposed in Missouri on actions against dram shop owners. Cf. Sampson v. W.F. Enterprises, Inc., supra; Skinner v. Hughes, supra. There is also no limitation on recovery for wrongful death in Missouri. See § 537.090 RSMo. 1978 (1982 Cum.Supp.). The laws of the two states are thus in conflict.

Pleading a theory of recovery under Missouri law in one count and another state's law in a separate count raises a choice of law issue. See Kennedy v. Dixon, 439 S.W.2d 173, 179-180 (Mo. banc 1969). Therefore, this court must make a choice of law between the limitation on recovery imposed by the Illinois Dram Shop Act and the full recovery permitted by Missouri law under the wrongful death statute. § 537.090 RSMo. 1978 (1982 Cum.Supp). The Missouri law should apply.

The Missouri Supreme Court in 1969 adopted the rule set forth in § 145, Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws and abandoned the long standing lex loci delicti rule for determining conflicts of law. Kennedy v. Dixon, supra at 184[6-8]. Choice of law in the field of torts since then has been resolved by applying the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws sets forth the principles by which the "most significant relationship" is determined. See Kennedy v. Dixon, supra at 181; Griggs v. Riley, 489 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.App.1972); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 145.^[6]

There is no Missouri statutory directive on a choice of law in the factual situation of the case under review. Therefore, the relevant factors listed in Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 6(2) must be considered.^[7]

[577] The relevant policies of the forum state, Missouri, must be considered. The policies behind allowing a full measure of recovery are three fold. One policy is to provide for the economic well-being of the decedent's dependents so that they will not become wards of the state. A second policy is to provide funds with which to pay creditors of the decedent. A third policy furthered by allowing unrestricted judgments for wrongful death is to promote the admonitory effect such judgments would have on potentially negligent defendants.

The first two policies are relevant to the case at bar. Missouri has an interest in the compensation of appellants for their loss because appellants are domicilaries of Missouri. See Restatement (Second) § 145(2)(c). If appellants are unable to support themselves financially, it will be the coffers of the Missouri treasury which will be called upon to provide them sustenance.

Compensation of the decedent's creditors is also a relevant policy. Missouri was the domicile of appellants' decedent and the place where he was injured. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2)(a), (c). Any creditors who have not been paid are likely to be located in Missouri.

The third policy, however, is of slight relevance in the present case. The conduct of respondent Roberts which contributed to the death of appellant's decedent occurred in Illinois and the tavern owner is apparently a domicilary of Illinois. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2)(b), (c). A policy of allowing unrestricted judgments in actions for deaths occasioned in Missouri will have minimal deterrent effect on persons and entities who reside and conduct their business affairs outside this state.

Inasmuch as Illinois is the only state other than Missouri which is involved in the present case, the relevant policies of Illinois must also be taken into consideration. The Illinois Dram Shop Act would allow recovery against tavern owners, thus indicating a concern with compensation of victims and deterrent effect on dram shop owners. But by limiting the measure of damages, Illinois would seem to have expressed an interest in protecting tavern owners from excessive judgments.

The first policy, compensation of victims, is irrelevant in Illinois because appellants are neither residents nor domicilaries of Illinois. The second policy, deterring tavern owners from serving alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated patron is relevant in Illinois for the reason that the tavern involved in the case at bar is located in Illinois. However, this policy would be better served by the unrestricted judgments allowed under Missouri law. Thus, the policy of deterrence would seem to point to a choice of Missouri law.

The third policy, protection of tavern owners from possible excessive judgments, is relevant in Illinois to the case at bar because the tavern owner resides and conducts her business in Illinois. Protection of tavern owners is inconsistent with the Missouri policy of full recovery.

Each state thus has an interest in the case under review which would be advanced by a choice of Illinois or Missouri law. None of the other factors listed in Section 6 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws are relevant with the exception of predictability of result.

Predictability of result would seem to point to a choice of Missouri law. On the one hand, one could say that a Missouri choice of law would be an unfair surprise to respondent Roberts because her connection with the present case occurred as a result of transactions in Illinois. However, it is unlikely that respondent would have been totally unaware that many of her patrons [578] came from Missouri because her tavern is located near the Illinois-Missouri border in Granite City, Illinois. Thus, the fact that an accident occurred in Missouri as a result of the intoxicated condition of one of her patrons blunts any claim of respondent that a choice of Missouri law was an unpredictable consequence.

If one examines the question of predictability from appellants' standpoint, any choice of law other than Missouri law would be a manifestly unfair surprise. Appellants reside in Missouri. The decedent lived and worked here. To tell appellants that a Missouri resident who is killed by a second Missouri resident while the former is working within Missouri that Illinois law governs a resulting lawsuit would doubtless be met with shock and disbelief.

The factor of predictability of result indicates that Missouri law should be applied. Furthermore, where it is difficult to establish that a particular state has the most significant relationship to an issue, "... then the trial court should continue, as in the past, to apply the substantive law of the place of the tort." Kennedy v. Dixon, supra at 185; see also State ex rel. Broglin v. Nangle, 510 S.W.2d 699, 704[3] (Mo. banc 1974). And: "... when an act operates across a state line, its legal character is determined by the law of the place where it first takes harmful effect or produces the result complained of. R. Leflar, American Conflicts of Law, § 133 at 267 (3rd ed. 1977)." Kansas City Star Co. v. Gunn, 627 S.W.2d 332, 334; Hughes Provision Co. v. La Mear Poultry & Egg Co., 242 S.W.2d 285, 288[3-4] (Mo.App.1951).

Consideration of the relevant factors as set forth in the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws, § 6(2) dictates that Missouri law be chosen.

One cannot, however, apply Missouri law without addressing the question of whether such a choice of law violates respondent Roberts' constitutional rights under either the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution. U.S. Const. Art. 4 § 1; U.S. Const.Amend. 14.

... [F]or a state's substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 101 S.Ct. 633, 640[3], 66 L.Ed.2d 521, reh. den. 450 U.S. 971, 101 S.Ct. 1494, 67 L.Ed.2d 623 (1981).

In Hague, the respondent's husband was killed while riding on a motorcycle in Wisconsin. The decedent and the respondent were residents of Wisconsin. The decedent, however, commuted daily from Wisconsin to his place of employment in Minnesota. After the accident, but before initiation of the lawsuit, respondent moved to Minnesota. Respondent then brought suit in Minnesota against Allstate Insurance Co., which did business there, seeking a declaratory judgment that the "... $15,000 uninsured motorist coverage on each of her late husband's three automobiles could be `stacked' to provide total coverage of $45,000." 101 S.Ct. at 636. The Minnesota Supreme Court applied Minnesota law to find that the policies could indeed be stacked. Id. at 636-637.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Minnesota's choice of law. Id. at 640[3]. Three factors influenced the court in its decision. First, the decedent was a member of the forum state's work force which gave it an interest in the "... safety and well-being of its work force and the concomitant effect on Minnesota employers." Id. at 641. In the instant case, appellants' decedent had an even more intimate connection with the forum state. Not only was the decedent a member of Missouri's work force, but he was also an employee of a political subdivision of Missouri. Furthermore, decedent was, and appellants are, residents of Missouri.

The second contact Hague had with Minnesota was that at all times Allstate Ins. Co. was doing business in Minnesota; therefore, Allstate could "... hardly claim unfamiliarity with the laws of the host jurisdiction [579] and surprise that the state courts might apply forum law ..." Id. at 642-643.

Turning to the case under review, there are no facts in appellants' petition from which one could infer that respondent was "doing business" in Missouri. However, Granite City lies within ten miles by highway from the Missouri border. It is less than five miles from a major interstate highway, I-270, which connects Illinois and Missouri. In view of these facts, plus the foreseeability that a patron would drive a car to a tavern, it is unlikely that respondent was unaware of the possibility that a drunken patron would leave the tavern by automobile and drive into Missouri.

The court in Hague also noted that the person seeking recovery was a Minnesota resident at the time of litigation, which gave Minnesota an interest in her compensation. Id. at 643-644. Likewise, Missouri has an interest seeing to it that appellants in the case at bar are fully compensated for their loss. Therefore, a choice of Missouri law by this court would not violate rights granted by the United States Constitution.

The decision reached by this court on the constitutionality of the choice of forum law is also supported by decisions of lower federal courts. In Rosenthal v. Warren, 475 F.2d 438 (2d Cir.1973), a New York domiciliary was treated in Massachusetts by a Massachusetts physician. The New York domicilary died in a Massachusetts hospital as the result of the physician's medical malpractice. The court held that a federal district court sitting in New York was not required to apply a Massachusetts law which limited the amount of damages recoverable in a wrongful death action. Id. at 446-447[5]. Although this court is not bound by the pronouncements of the federal circuit courts of appeals, this court finds Rosenthal v. Warren persuasive. See also Scott v. City of Hammond, Ind., 519 F.Supp. 292, 297-298 (N.D.Ill.1981) (Illinois law applied to an Indiana municipality).

The judgment on Count III of the petition is affirmed; the judgment on Count V of the appellants' petition is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

[1] See e.g., Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 43 § 135 (Smith-Hurd 1944, 1982-83 Cum.Supp.); N.Y. General Obligations Law § 11-101 (McKinney 1978). In other states, the rule has been judicially overturned. Nazareno v. Urie, 638 P.2d 671 (Alaska 1981); Ono v. Applegate, 62 Hawaii 131, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw.1980); Alegria v. Payonk, 101 Idaho 617, 619 P.2d 135 (Idaho 1980); Elder v. Fisher, 247 Ind. 598, 217 N.E.2d 847 (Ind.1966); Munford, Inc. v. Peterson, 368 So.2d 213 (Miss.1979); Rappaport v. Nichols, 31 N.J. 188, 156 A.2d 1 (N.J.1959); Miller v. City of Portland, 288 Or. 271, 604 P.2d 1261 (Or.1980).

[2] Lewi's v. Wolf, 122 Ariz. 567, 596 P.2d 705 (Ariz.App.1979); Carr v. Turner, supra; Keaton v. Kroger Co., 143 Ga.App. 23, 237 S.E.2d 443 (Ga.App.1977); Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174, 438 A.2d 494 (Md.App.1981); Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 244 N.W.2d 65 (Neb.1976); Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., 85 Nev. 99, 450 P.2d 358 (Nev.1969); Marchiondo v. Roper, 90 N.M. 367, 563 P.2d 1160 (N.M.1977); Olsen v. Copeland, 90 Wis.2d 483, 280 N.W.2d 178 (Wis.1979); Parsons v. Jow, supra.

[3] Until 1934 Missouri had a dram shop act which granted a civil right of action to any person who was injured by an intoxicated person against the party who caused the intoxication. § 4487 RSMo. 1929. The dram shop act was repealed in 1934 concurrently with the adoption of the new Liquor Control Law. Laws 1933-34, Extra Session, page 77.

[4]Section 311.310 RSMo. 1978 reads:

"Any licensee under this chapter, or his employee, who shall sell, vend, give away or otherwise supply any intoxicating liquor in any quantity whatsoever ... to any person intoxicated or any person appearing to be in a state of intoxication ... shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor ..."

[5] Illinois has held that its dram shop act has no extra territorial application. Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665, V.F.W., 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657 (1969). However, this court is not bound by Illinois choice of law decisions. Furthermore, the reasoning of the Graham decision has been criticized as a misapplication of interest analysis. See R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws, 237-239, note 48 (1971).

[6]Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 reads:

The General Principle.

(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.

(2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:

(a) the place where the injury occurred,

(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred,

(c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and

(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issues.

Section 6 reads:

Choice of Law Principles:

(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.

(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include

(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,

(b) the relevant policies of the forum,

(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,

(d) the protection of justified expectations,

(e) the basic policies underlying the particular fields of law,

(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and

(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.

[7]The following factors in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 6(2) have minimal relevance to the choice of law in the case under review and will not be discussed:

(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,

(d) the protection of justified expectations,

(e) the basic policies underlying the particular fields of law,

(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.

Donald W. Vasos, of Vasos, Kugler & Dickerson, of Kansas City, argued the cause and Stephen G. Dickerson, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant.

Mark V. Parkinson, of Payne & Jones, Chartered, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Keith Martin, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee.

[630] The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCHROEDER, C.J.:

Lyllis Ling (plaintiff-appellant) brought this action in the trial court alleging negligence on the part of Jan's Liquors (defendant-appellee) in selling alcohol to a minor whose intoxication allegedly resulted in a car accident causing plaintiff's injury. Ling appeals from an order and judgment dismissing her complaint against defendant on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-212(b). We affirm the decision of the trial court.

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Ling is afforded the safeguard of having all her allegations taken as true and all inferences drawn favorably to her. Wirt v. Esrey, 233 Kan. 300, 662 P.2d 1238 (1983). Applying that principle, we look to the complaint for the facts. It alleges:

At approximately 1 a.m., on Sunday, February 3, 1980, Ling was driving her automobile east on Johnson Drive in Fairway, Johnson County, Kansas, when the vehicle became disabled. Ling left the vehicle and was standing beside it when she was struck by a vehicle driven by Richard Shirley. At that time Shirley was nineteen years old and a minor under Missouri law governing the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors.

At the time of the accident, Shirley was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. A blood alcohol examination taken at Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Overland Park, Kansas, showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.30 percent by weight.

The petition also alleges that Jan's Liquors, a Missouri retail liquor establishment, sold or provided to Richard Shirley on the night of February 2, 1980, an alcoholic beverage which rendered him incapable of operating a motor vehicle.

On February 3, 1982, Ling filed a petition in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, seeking damages for the injuries she received which resulted in the amputation of both her legs. On July 20, 1983, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 60-212(b).

The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding (1) "there is no liquor vendor liability in Kansas and there is no indication that the Kansas Supreme Court will impose the same"; (2) Kansas law and not Missouri law should apply to the [631] instant action; and (3) the Kansas long-arm statute would apply to give the court in personam jurisdiction in the case.

Initially, we must ascertain whether the trial court erred in finding the Kansas long-arm statute (K.S.A. 60-308b) applied to give it in personam jurisdiction over Jan's Liquors, a nonresident defendant. The trial court based its finding on K.S.A. 60-308(b)(7), which provides:

"(b) Submitting to jurisdiction — process. Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent or instrumentality does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits the person and, if an individual, the individual's personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of these acts:

....

"(7) causing to persons or property within this state any injury arising out of an act or omission outside of this state by the defendant if, at the time of the injury either (A) the defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state; or (B) products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of trade or use."

The defendant argues that this section of the Kansas long-arm statute is limited to products liability cases. We agree.

In order for personal jurisdiction to be obtained under K.S.A. 60-308(b)(7), the defendant must have had the type of contact within the state as defined in either alternative (A) or (B). In other words, the defendant must either have been engaged in solicitation or service activities within the state, or the product which was the cause of injury must have been used or consumed within the state in the ordinary course of trade or use. In Tilley v. Keller Truck & Implement Corp., 200 Kan. 641, 438 P.2d 128 (1968), this court recognized that the legislative intent of K.S.A. 60-308(b)(7) was to grant in personam jurisdiction to the courts of this state over those who engage in the manufacture, sale, or servicing of products if they receive or can anticipate some direct or indirect financial benefit from the sale, trade, use or servicing of their products within this state.

We find that the sale by an out-of-state liquor vendor to an occasional Kansas customer does not fit within the provisions of either alternative (A) or (B). Moreover, based on our analysis of legislative intent in Tilley, we find the liquor vendor is not the kind of defendant the legislature intended to reach when it [632] enacted K.S.A. 60-308(b)(7). Therefore, the trial court erred by relying on K.S.A. 60-308(b)(7).

An Illinois court met with a similar factual setting and jurisdictional issue in Wimmer v. Koenigseder, 128 Ill. App.3d 157, 470 N.E.2d 326 (1984). In that case, the plaintiff brought suit on behalf of the decedent whose death resulted from injuries she received in a car accident in Illinois. The defendant-driver who caused the accident, a minor for purposes of Illinois law, had been served alcohol in a nearby Wisconsin tavern where he was of legal drinking age. The plaintiff brought suit in Illinois against the Wisconsin liquor vendor. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed and held, in part, that Illinois had in personam jurisdiction under the section of its long-arm statute which provides jurisdiction over any person who commits a "tortious act within this State." Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 110, § 2-209(a)(2) (Smith-Hurd 1983). The court stated, "For the purposes of the long-arm statute, `physical presence is not necessary for the commission of a tortious act within this State; ... the place of a wrong is where the last event takes place which is necessary to render the actor liable.' [Citations omitted.]" 470 N.E.2d at 331. The court found the "last event" was the injury in Illinois. The fact that the sale occurred entirely in another state was of no consequence. The court further found that due process requirements of "minimum contracts" were met.

K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2) is similar to the provision relied on by the Illinois court. It provides jurisdiction over any person who commits a "tortious act within this state."

In the case at bar, the negligent act (selling liquor to a minor) was committed outside this state, while the injury occurred within this state. Therefore, in order for K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2) to apply, it must be found that an injury which occurs in this state as a result of a negligent act outside this state is equivalent to the commission of a "tortious act within the state." This is a question of first impression in Kansas.

Vernon's Kansas C. Civ. Proc. § 60-308 (1965) contains several articles discussing the Kansas long-arm statute. Each article concludes that if the injury caused by a tortious act occurs within this state, even though the first part of the tortious act took place outside the state, the occurrence of the injury is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction under (b)(2).

Other jurisdictions, in interpreting provisions similar to K.S.A. [633] 60-308(b)(2), have given the term "tortious act" a broad interpretation, deeming it to imply the whole continuum of actions involved, rather than a single act. Vandermee v. Dist. Ct., 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335 (1967); see also Jack O'Donnell Chevrolet, Inc. v. Shankles, 276 F. Supp. 998 (N.D. Ill. 1967); Gray v. Amer. Radiator & Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961). Under this interpretation, the "tortious act" is not complete until the injury has occurred. In other words, the "tortious act" is deemed to have occurred in the state where the injury occurs.

In J.E.M. Corp. v. McClellan, 462 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Kan. 1978), it was held that a fraudulent misrepresentation made from without the jurisdiction (telephone calls) which cause tortious injury within the jurisdiction constituted a "tortious act" in this state within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2). The court found that a sufficient constitutional basis for the exercise of jurisdiction existed and arose out of the intentional tortious act causing injury to a resident in the forum on a claim for damages arising from that act.

Even though the McClellan case involved an intentional tort while the case at bar involves negligence, we find the reasoning in McClellan is applicable. In McClellan, the "tortious act" included both the misrepresentations from outside the state and the resulting injury in Kansas. In the case at bar, the "tortious act" included both the selling of the liquor in Missouri and the injury to the plaintiff in Kansas. The act was completed in Kansas. Therefore, we hold that under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2), it is possible to bring suit in Kansas to recover damages for injuries occurring in this state which resulted from negligent conduct outside the state.

This holding is consistent with our oft-repeated assertion that the long-arm statute should be liberally construed to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Misco-United Supply, Inc. v. Richards of Rockford, Inc., 215 Kan. 849, 528 P.2d 1248 (1974); Woodring v. Hall, 200 Kan. 597, 438 P.2d 135 (1968).

Accordingly, we find the trial court reached the correct result for the wrong reason, and so its decision on this point is upheld. Strehlow v. Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 232 Kan. 589, 592, 659 P.2d 785 (1983).

[634] The plaintiff next contends the trial court erred in finding that Kansas substantive law governed the action.

Under Missouri law, a tavern owner can be held civilly liable for selling intoxicating liquor to a minor. Ling argues that the rule in Kansas is that the law of the state where the tort occurred is applied to determine the substantive rights of the parties; that the tort in this case was the wrongful sale of the intoxicating liquor to a minor; and, therefore, Missouri substantive law should apply. Jan's Liquors argues that Kansas courts are to apply the law of the state where the injury occurred and, since the injury in this case occurred in Kansas, Kansas law should govern.

The rule in this state is that the law of the state where the tort occurred — lex loci delicti — should apply. McDaniel v. Sinn, 194 Kan. 625, 400 P.2d 1018 (1965); Pool v. Day, 141 Kan. 195, 40 P.2d 396 (1935). However, this court has never addressed the conflict of law issue in a multistate tort action — that is, where the negligent act originated outside the state, but the resultant injury occurred in the state. In Swearngin v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 376 F.2d 637, 639 (10th Cir.1967), the court stated:

"`[T]he general rule is that where an act of omission or commission occurs at one place and resulting death, personal injury, or damage takes place at another, the situs of the actionable wrong is the place at which the death, personal injury or property damage takes place.'"

Ling acknowledges that under the doctrine of lex loci delicti, the situs of the injury determines the governing law. However, she argues that in this type of case, the accident site is overshadowed by the location of the unlawful sale of liquor. Ling suggests that this court should adopt an analytical approach to determine whose law should govern. The "analytical approach" has been adopted by a number of courts in recent years. It allows the court to resolve the choice of substantive law by giving to the place having the most interest in the problem paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual situation, thereby allowing the forum to apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation. See Annot., 29 A.L.R.3d 603; Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419, 142 N.W.2d 66 (1966); Fuerste v. Bemis, 156 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1968). We reject the analytical approach for determining what law should govern the substantive rights of the parties.

We hold that in an action for recovery of damages for injuries [635] sustained in Kansas which were the result of a negligent act in another state, the liability of the defendant is to be determined by the laws of this state. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by applying Kansas law.

The final issue is whether Kansas recognizes a claim for relief against one furnishing liquor to a minor in favor of those injured as a consequence of the minor's intoxication.

Kansas does not have a dram shop act. Further, there has been no judicial imposition of dram shop liability in this state. Therefore, the question we are faced with is whether — in the absence of a dram shop act — this court should impose liability on the defendant, thus creating a new cause of action in this state.

Ling argues that we should impose liability upon the defendant on the basis of common-law principles of negligence or negligence per se. Jan's Liquors argues that in the absence of a special dram shop act specifically creating a civil remedy and civil cause of action against the commercial purveyor of intoxicants, no remedy or cause of action can be maintained.

At common law, and apart from statute, no redress existed against persons selling, giving, or furnishing intoxicating liquor for resulting injuries or damages due to the acts of intoxicated persons, either on the theory that the dispensing of the liquor constituted a direct wrong or that it constituted actionable negligence. This rule was based on the theory that the proximate cause of the injury was the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor and not the vendor in selling it. See, e.g., State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249, 78 A.2d 754 (1951); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors § 553. This court recognized the common-law rule of nonliability for a liquor vendor in Stringer v. Calmes, 167 Kan. 278, 205 P.2d 921 (1949).

In recent years, many states have retreated from or have abrogated the strict common-law rule. Fourteen states now have dram shop statutes which give, generally, a right of action to persons injured in person, property, or means of support, by an intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person, against the person selling or furnishing the liquor which caused the intoxication in whole or in part. See appendix.

Courts in 29 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, have judicially abrogated the common-law doctrine of no liability. See appendix. Six states with dram shop laws have judicially imposed liability in some form. See appendix. Many of the [636] jurisdictions which now recognize a common-law right of action do so on the premise that the serving of liquor to a minor or an inebriated person initiates a foreseeable chain of events for which the tavern owner may be held liable. See, e.g., Campbell v. Carpenter, 279 Or. 237, 566 P.2d 893 (1977). Others of these jurisdictions conclude that criminal statutes in force in their jurisdiction which proscribe sales of intoxicants to minors or inebriated persons establish a standard of conduct for tavern owners and their employees, deviation from which may constitute negligence per se. See, e.g., Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 667 P.2d 200 (1983). These courts reason that the criminal statutes represent public policy and public interest in preventing injury to those specific classes incompetent to handle intoxicating liquors as well as injury to the public at large.

Six states which do not have dram shop laws have refused to impose liability judicially. See appendix. These jurisdictions have considered, but declined to follow, the new trend of cases, because they find the issue is one of public policy which is best left to the legislative body. These courts refuse to find negligence per se on the ground that the criminal statutes were intended to be purely regulatory in nature and were not intended to create a civil cause of action.

By way of historical background to aid in a better understanding of the problems involved in this appeal, we point out that the territorial legislature of Kansas enacted a dram shop act in 1859. That law included a civil damage statute which provided a cause of action against the seller, barterer or giver of intoxicating liquors for damage or injury caused "by any intoxicated person or in consequence of intoxication." The statute was included in the 1881 revision of the statutes (L. 1881, ch. 128, § 15) and again in 1923 when it was designated R.S. 1923, 21-2150 and stated:

"Every wife, child, parent, guardian or employer, or other person who shall be injured in person or property, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person, such wife, child, parent or guardian, employer or other person shall have a right of action, in his or her own name, against any person who shall, by selling, bartering or giving intoxicating liquors, have caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages actually sustained, as well as for exemplary damages; and a married woman shall have the right to bring suits, prosecute and control the same, and the amount recovered, the same as if unmarried; and all damages recovered by a minor under this act shall be paid either to such minor, or to his or her parents, guardian, or next friend, as the court shall direct; and all suits for damages under this act shall be by civil action in any of the courts of this state having jurisdiction thereof."

[637] Several Kansas cases have discussed and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. See Coy v. Cutting, 138 Kan. 109, 23 P.2d 458 (1933); Zibold v. Reneer, 73 Kan. 312, 85 Pac. 290 (1906); Landrum v. Flannigan, 60 Kan. 436, 56 Pac. 753 (1899).

On November 2, 1948, the citizens of this state voted to amend art. 15 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas. The result was that only the open saloon is now prohibited in this state. (Art. 15, § 10, Constitution of Kansas.) The new constitutional provision gave the legislature the power to regulate, license, and tax the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors and to regulate the possession and transportation of intoxicating liquors.

In 1949 the legislature repealed certain statutes under the "Bone-Dry Law" (ch. 41 — Intoxicating Liquors), because the Kansas constitutional prohibition against the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors had been repealed. The legislature, exercising its power, enacted the "Kansas Liquor Control Act." (Ch. 41, art. 1 through art. 27.) The new act regulated the manufacturing, bottling, blending, selling, bartering, transportation, delivery, furnishing or possessing of alcoholic liquor. The Act was a comprehensive plan to regulate liquor from the time of its manufacture within the state or importation into the state until it was ultimately sold by a licensed retailer for use or consumption. Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748, 752, 408 P.2d 877 (1965). Included in the Act was the prohibition against the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors and incompetents. G.S. 1949, 41-715 stated:

"No person shall knowingly or unknowingly sell, give away, dispose of, exchange or deliver, or permit the sale, gift or procuring of any alcoholic liquor to or for any minor; and no such minor shall represent that he is of age for the purpose of asking for, purchasing or receiving alcoholic liquor from any persons, except in cases authorized by law. No person shall knowingly sell, give away, dispose of, exchange or deliver, or permit the sale, gift or procuring of any alcoholic liquor to or for any person who is mentally incompetent, or any person who is physically or mentally incapacitated by the consumption of such liquor.... [L. 1949, ch. 242, § 78; March 9.]"

The statute also provided for a fine or imprisonment.

The 1949 legislature — the same legislature which enacted the criminal regulatory statute — chose not to reenact the dram shop act. It was repealed in G.S. 1949, 41-1106, and has never been reenacted.

The 1949 law prohibiting sale of intoxicating liquor to minors was amended in 1963 (L. 1963, ch. 267, § 1) and in 1965 (L. 1965, ch. 277, § 8). K.S.A. 41-715 now states:

[638] "No minor shall represent that he is of age for the purpose of asking for, purchasing or receiving alcoholic liquor from any person except in cases authorized by law. No minor shall attempt to purchase or purchase alcoholic liquor from any person. No minor shall possess alcoholic liquor. No person shall knowingly sell, give away, dispose of, exchange or deliver, or permit the sale, gift or procuring of any alcoholic liquor to or for any person who is an incapacitated person, or any person who is physically or mentally incapacitated by the consumption of such liquor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) or by imprisonment for not to exceed thirty (30) days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. [L. 1949, ch. 242, § 78; L. 1963, ch. 267, § 1; L. 1965, ch. 277, § 8; June 30.]"

The 1965 legislature enacted L. 1965, ch. 277, § 7, making it a crime for any person to knowingly or unknowingly sell to, buy for, give to, or furnish, either directly or indirectly, any intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years. That statute, K.S.A. 1965 Supp. 38-715, included a provision revoking the retail liquor license issued under K.S.A. 41-308 of any retailer who violated the statute. The revocation penalty was later repealed when K.S.A. 21-3610 was enacted in 1969. When the legislature enacted that statute in 1969, it omitted the phrase "knowingly or unknowingly," making the present violation a general intent crime.

Since the legislature's repeal of the civil liability statute in 1949, there has been no reported Kansas case asserting the liability to third persons of one selling or furnishing liquor. The last case to discuss the dram shop statute was Stringer v. Calmes, 167 Kan. 278, which was decided in 1949 prior to the repeal of the act. In that case the court held, unequivocably, that no common-law right of action existed.

In recent years, the Kansas legislature has made control of drunken drivers a high priority matter. Significant legislation has tightened the laws which deal with such offenses. The legislature of this state has considered all aspects of the problem of drunken driving in seeking solutions to the problem.

In 1984, limited dram shop legislation was introduced. (H.B. 2661). The proposed bill imposed liability on any person negligently selling or furnishing alcoholic beverages to a minor where the minor, under the influence thereof, caused death, personal injury or property damage to another. The bill died after it was passed out of committee.

On January 3, 1985, dram shop legislation was proposed by the [639] Kansas Attorney General. A press release of that date from his office states in part:

"Attorney General Robert T. Stephan has written letters to the newly appointed chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees urging consideration of a dram shop law in Kansas, along with other measures to stiffen the state's drunk driving laws.

"Stephan wrote the letters to Senator-elect Robert Frey, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Rep. Joe Knopp, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

"The dram shop law Stephen proposes would give persons injured by an intoxicated person, their families and employers the specific right to sue stores selling package liquor or beer, private clubs and taverns. The clubs, taverns and stores could be found liable for damages if they sold beer or liquor to a person who already was intoxicated, or served them alcohol to the point of intoxication, provided that the intoxication contributed to the injury."

Five days later (January 8, 1985) another press release from the Attorney General's Office stated:

"Attorney General Robert T. Stephan said today he will advise the chairmen of the Judiciary committees he is modifying his proposals to combat drunk driving.

"`If you have decided that you have come up with a bad idea that you have a responsibility to say so,' Stephan said. `I have the courage to make suggestions for legislative study, and also have the courage to know when my proposals to deter drunk driving should be modified.

"`Upon reexamination, I believe that existing law can be strengthened to better combat drunk driving. The dram shop law which I proposed would only add to legal entanglements. Therefore, I am withdrawing my suggestion that a dram shop law be enacted and will continue to study further means to deal with drunk driving.'"

With this historical background in mind, we again turn to the plaintiff's arguments. Ling contends that the violation of K.S.A. 21-3610 and K.S.A. 41-715 (establishing criminal penalties for sale of alcoholic liquor to a minor) is a breach of a duty imposed by law and, thus, negligence per se. In other contexts this court has recognized the rule that breach of a duty imposed by law or ordinance is negligence per se, and that damages may be predicated on its violation if the breach is the proximate cause of the injury or damages or substantially contributes to the injury. Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842, 610 P.2d 1107 (1980); Kendrick v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rld. Co., 182 Kan. 249, 260, 320 P.2d 1061 (1958). We decline to find negligence per se in this case since to do so would subvert the apparent legislative intention.

The predecessor to K.S.A. 41-715 (of which K.S.A. 21-3610 was once a part) was first enacted in 1949, the same year the dram [640] shop act was repealed. Since that time, the legislature, although it has considered it, has not re-created a civil cause of action in favor of those injured as a result of a violation of the liquor laws. Clearly, the legislature would have done so had it intended for there to be a civil cause of action. K.S.A. 41-715 prohibits the dispensing of intoxicating liquors to certain classes of persons and is a comprehensive act to regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcoholic liquors. The legislature did not intend for it to be interpreted to impose civil liability. Therefore, we hold that the Missouri liquor vendor's violation of a criminal regulatory statute was not negligence per se.

As previously noted, the common-law rule is that, in the absence of legislation, the suppliers of alcohol are not liable to the victims of an intoxicated tortfeasor. Stringer, 167 Kan. 278. The common law remains in force in this state where the constitution is silent or the legislature has failed to act. K.S.A. 77-109. However, the common law is not static. It is subject to modification by judicial decision in light of changing conditions or increased knowledge where this court finds that it is a vestige of the past, no longer suitable to the circumstances of the people of this state. Indeed, we have not hesitated to adopt a new cause of action by judicial decision where we have determined that course was compelled by changing circumstances. See, e.g., Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co., 215 Kan. 814, 529 P.2d 104 (1974) (creating new cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress); McCart v. Muir, 230 Kan. 618, 641 P.2d 384 (1982) (creating new cause of action for negligent entrustment). See also Durflinger v. Artiles, 234 Kan. 484, 673 P.2d 86 (1983).

Although empowered to change the common law in light of changed conditions, this court recognizes that declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch of government. Whether Kansas should abandon the old common-law rule and align itself with the new trend of cases which impose civil liability upon vendors of alcoholic beverages for the torts of their inebriated patrons depends ultimately upon what best serves the societal interest and need. Clearly, this is a matter of public policy which the legislature is best equipped to handle.

The court in Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 504-05, 244 N.W.2d 65 (1976), made the following astute observation with which we agree:

[641] "We are mindful of the misery caused by drunken drivers and the losses sustained by both individuals and society at the hands of drunken drivers, but the task of limiting and defining a new cause of action which could grow from a fact nucleus formed from any combination of numerous permutations of the fact situation before us is properly within the realm of the Legislature.

"The imposition of a common law duty of due care would create a situation rife with uncertainty and difficulty. If the commercial vendor is liable for negligence, does the host at a social gathering owe a duty to prospective victims of guests? The difficulties of recognizing intoxication and predicting conduct of an intoxicated patron without imposing some duty of inquiry are evident. Problems could also arise in the apportionment or sorting out of liability among the owners of various bars visited on `bar hopping' excursions. The correct standard of care to be used also presents a problem, as does the determination of whether all acts of the patron, including intentional torts, should be included within the liability of the tavern owner or operator."

In the final analysis, we find the decision should be left to the legislature.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

HOLMES, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur with the majority opinion that under the common law as it exists in this state there is no liability in this case and that the trial court was correct in dismissing plaintiff's case for failure to state a cause of action. When the legislature, in 1949, repealed R.S. 1923, 21-2150, it would appear obvious that it intended the common law to prevail. As pointed out by the majority opinion, the legislature has, on numerous occasions, revised our liquor control laws but has failed to re-enact legislation creating the cause of action sought by plaintiff and it is not our position to do so. Hence, I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion.

I disagree with that portion of the opinion which would apply long-arm jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2) to the facts of this case. The tortious act of the defendant in selling liquor to a minor in Missouri is too far removed from the auto accident occurring hours later, in Kansas, to be considered the "commission of a tortious act within this state" as required by the statute. While plaintiff's unfortunate injuries were suffered in Kansas, they were not, in my opinion, the result of any tortious act committed in Kansas by Jan's Liquors. The tortious act of this defendant was complete upon the sale of the liquor in Missouri. There are not [642] sufficient minimum contacts in this case to justify personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute. See Internat. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154 (1945); Schlatter v. Mo-Comm Futures, Ltd., 233 Kan. 324, 662 P.2d 553 (1983).

McFARLAND and HERD, JJ., join in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.

LOCKETT, J., concurring and dissenting:

I concur with the majority that: (1) under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-308(b)(2) it is possible to bring suit in Kansas to recover damages for injuries occurring in this state which resulted from negligent conduct outside the state; and (2) in an action for recovery of damages for injuries sustained in Kansas which were the result of a breach of a duty in another state, the liability of the defendant is to be determined by the laws of this state.

I cannot agree with the majority's denial of a right of action to persons injured in person, property or means of support, by an intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person, against the person illegally selling or furnishing the liquor which caused the intoxication in whole or in part. In reaching this conclusion, the majority, by denying that a cause of action exists, misapplies the common law, the legislature's acts and prior decisions of this court.

The majority, citing State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249, 78 A.2d 754 (1951), and 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors § 553, states, "At common law, and apart from statute, no redress existed against persons selling, giving, or furnishing intoxicating liquor for resulting injuries or damages due to the acts of intoxicated persons, whether on the theory that the dispensing of the liquor constituted a direct wrong or constituted actionable negligence." The Am.Jur.2d citation actually states, "At common law it is not a tort to either sell or give intoxicating liquor to ordinary able-bodied men, and it has been frequently held that in the absence of statute, there can be no cause of action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished. The reason usually given for this rule is that the drinking of the liquor, not the furnishing of it, is the proximate cause of the injury.... [O]ne cannot become intoxicated by reason of liquor furnished him if he does not drink it."

[643] When the driver, Shirley, was furnished intoxicating liquor in this case he was not an able-bodied man. He was a minor. There is a statute in Kansas, as well as a similar one in Missouri, which prohibits the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor to a minor. K.S.A. 41-715. Clearly the common law is not a bar to Ling's action against the vendor who illegally furnished intoxicating liquor not to an able-bodied man, but to a minor.

The common law of England is the basic component of the common law adopted in the United States. Even if the common law is as the majority states, the courts of this country are not required to adhere to the decisions of the English common law courts unless such law is adopted by the state courts or by legislative enactment in aid of the general statutes.

Constitutional or statutory provisions in most states expressly declare the common law to be in force. The 1868 General Statutes of the State of Kansas, ch. 119, sec. 3 (now K.S.A. 77-109) provided that the common law shall remain in force in aid of the general statutes. The common law has been continuously incorporated into our law by our legislature to fill the voids in law where the constitution is silent or the legislature and the courts have failed to act.

When our legislature adopted the rule the common law was to remain in force in aid of the general statutes, it recognized that the common law was modified by our constitution and can be modified by the legislature when it enacts new laws or repeals old laws. The legislature also recognized that the common law can be modified by the courts when rendering judicial decisions and when the conditions and wants of the people require action (K.S.A. 77-109).

The courts of this state have never maintained that the common law is static and must be used to maintain the status quo. Like the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, the common law grows as it is applied to new situations or as a need arises. The common law is judge-made and judge-applied. It is not to be followed blindly and can be changed when conditions and circumstances require if the prior law is unjust or has become bad public policy. In the past, this court has expanded the common law to meet the requirements of a modern society. It would be unfortunate to our economy and our developing society if we should cease to engage in the [644] common-law tradition of judicial expansion which adapts the law to the ever-changing needs and demands of a dynamic society.

The general principle of negligence law is that every person owes a duty to avoid creating situations which pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Negligence exists where the duty owed by one person to another is breached. Further, if recovery is to be obtained for such negligence, the injured party must show: (1) a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury received; and (2) that the person was damaged by that negligence. Durflinger v. Artiles, 234 Kan. 484, 488, 673 P.2d 86 (1983).

In 1974, we recognized that an action exists against one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co., 215 Kan. 814, 820, 529 P.2d 104 (1974). In McCart v. Muir, 230 Kan. 618, 641 P.2d 384 (1982), we determined that parents who knowingly and negligently furnish a car to their son, who by reason of age, experience, mental condition, or known habits of recklessness, is incapable of operating a vehicle with ordinary care, are responsible for the injuries caused by their negligent entrustment of the automobile to their son. In Balagna v. Shawnee County, 233 Kan. 1068, 668 P.2d 157 (1983), there was evidence that an architect-engineer had actual knowledge of safety standards contained in a construction contract and had actual knowledge that the prescribed safety precautions were not being followed by the contractor. We imposed a duty upon the architect-engineer to take reasonable action to prevent injury to the contractor's employees. In Durfliger v. Artiles, 234 Kan. 484, where a state hospital physician, as part of his employment, participated in a hospital team which recommended that a committed patient be discharged because he was no longer dangerous to himself or others, we imposed a duty upon that physician to use reasonable and ordinary care and discretion in making the recommendation to release the patient. The duty imposed to protect was a duty owed to both the patient and the public. In each of these cases where this court imposed a duty for a negligent act, the defendants did not purposefully violate a law.

We have recognized there is a distinction between "negligence" and "negligence per se." Negligence must be found by [645] the jury from the evidence, while "negligence per se" results from a violation of law or ordinance. Kansas follows the rule that a breach of duty imposed by law or ordinance is negligence per se, and liability in damages can be predicated on violation of that law where that breach is the proximate cause of the injury or damages or substantially contributes to the injury. Kendrick v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rld. Co., 182 Kan. 249, 260, 320 P.2d 1061 (1958).

The majority states that a breach of a duty imposed by law or ordinance is negligence per se, unless the legislature clearly did not intend to impose civil liability for the breach. It states that K.S.A. 41-715, which prohibits the dispensing of alcoholic liquors to certain classes of persons, was intended by the legislature to regulate the sale of liquor and was not intended to impose civil liability. It concludes that K.S.A. 41-715, while imposing criminal penalties for a violation of the statute, is merely a portion of a comprehensive act to regulate the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages and, therefore, not a basis for negligence per se.

Does the majority suggest that such is true of all similar acts passed by the legislature or is it limited only to this act? Consider Chapter 8, "Automobiles and Other Vehicles," which is a comprehensive act to regulate the licensing, sale and use of automobiles. Is not the same true of Chapter 8 as is true of Chapter 41, that while it contains certain provisions for licensing, other sections provide criminal sanctions for violation of those sections? The majority would imply that an individual who, while driving an automobile, intentionally and illegally proceeded into a controlled intersection and struck another vehicle is not required to bear the responsibility for any damage caused.

The legislature did not create a civil cause of action in favor of those injured as a result of a violation of the traffic laws. Does this legislative silence mean that the legislature did not intend for such violations of the traffic laws to be interpreted to impose civil liability, that a violation of the traffic laws is not negligence per se because the legislature remained silent? Rarely does the legislature specifically create a civil cause of action in favor of those injured as a result of a violation of a law.

K.S.A. 41-715 is not a licensing statute enacted by the legislature to regulate who may sell liquor. Chapter 41 of the statutes, [646] which is entitled "Intoxicating Liquors and Beverages," contains several sections which regulate the issuance of a license. K.S.A. 41-715, however, does not appear in a licensing article of Chapter 41. It appears in Article 7, which is entitled "Certain Prohibited Acts and Penalties." A violator of 41-715 may, in addition to receiving a fine not to exceed $200.00, receive a sentence not to exceed 30 days or both a fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Any person violating 41-715 is deemed guilty of a misdemeanor by the statute.

The majority is either failing to overrule prior case law or ignoring it. In Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842, 610 P.2d 1107 (1980), this court determined that for public safety reasons, K.S.A. 21-4209 prohibits minors, habitual drunkards, narcotics addicts and felons from obtaining explosives or detonating substances. It was the public policy of the act that the party whose conduct violates the act must bear the responsibility for the damage caused. The defendant, in violation of the statute, sold gunpowder to a sixteen-year-old boy who used the gunpowder to reload some shells. The boy was injured when his shotgun misfired. The minor predicated his successful action against the seller of the gunpowder upon the theory that actionable negligence occurs when one breaches a duty imposed by a criminal statute and the breach results in an injury of the type intended to be prevented.

K.S.A. 41-715 forbids the sale of alcoholic liquor to a minor, any person who is incapacitated or any person who is physically or mentally incapacitated by the consumption of liquor. The statute establishes a criminal penalty for such sales. The purpose of 41-715 is to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to those individuals who are unlikely to be able to handle alcohol. These individuals not only need protection from their own acts, but society needs protection from them.

Are we required to take legislative silence as to civil liability for alcohol vendors who violate a statute as an expression of legislative intent? Why has the majority suddenly determined that legislative silence is action? Prior to the legislature's repeal of the dram shop act in G.S. 1949, 41-1106, the legislature knew that this court had stated that where there is a breach of a duty imposed by law and injury occurs as a result of the breach, the injured party is entitled to compensation. If the legislature [647] wishes to exempt a specific class of violators from liability for damages which they cause by their negligence, then the legislature should speak. The court should not legislate an exemption. There is no more persuasive evidence of the legislature's intention than a statute undertaken by the legislature to give expression to that intention. Where legislative enactments in the past have contained no express provision that their violation shall result in tort liability, and no implication to that effect, this court has adopted the requirements of that enactment as a standard of conduct necessary to protect certain individuals or society as a whole.

Section 18 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Kansas provides that all persons who suffer injuries to their person, reputation or property have a remedy by due course of law. In addition to our constitution, the legislature is aware of the principle of negligence law that every person is under a duty to avoid creating situations which impose an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Many times we have stated that a breach of a duty imposed by law or ordinance constitutes negligence per se and where injury occurs as a result of the breach, the injured party is entitled to compensation. Cognizant of our past actions, the legislature may well consider that when a judge-made common-law rule has become obsolete, anachronistic and oppressive, the court is responsible for change.

The majority states that the issue presented is whether this court should judicially enact a "dram shop" law imposing civil liability upon liquor vendors who violate 41-715. The real issue is whether this court should follow our previous case law which determined that public policy requires, where a party's conduct violates a penal statute, that party must bear the responsibility for the damage caused as a result of the violation.

A statute is an expression of policy arising out of specific situations and addressed to the attainment of a particular aim of the legislature. The majority should not rewrite the statute. It should neither enlarge it nor contract it. The majority should take the statute as it finds it. This it has failed to do.

PRAGER and MILLER, JJ., join in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.

[648] APPENDIX

  Following is a brief summary of the present status of the civilliability of liquor vendors in all jurisdictions.1. ALABAMA Dram shop act (Ala. Code § 6-5-71 [1975]). No    common-law vendor liability. DeLoach v. Mayer Elec. Supply    Co., 378 So.2d 733 (Ala. 1979).2. ALASKA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law liability.    Nazareno v. Urie, 638 P.2d 671 (Alaska 1981); and Morris v.    Farley Enterprises, Inc., 661 P.2d 167 (Alaska 1983).3. ARIZONA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 667 P.2d 200    (1983); and Brannigan v. Raybuck, 136 Ariz. 513, 667 P.2d    213 (1983), overruling earlier Arizona cases adhering to    nonliability rule.4. ARKANSAS No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W.2d 656    (1965).5. CALIFORNIA Prevailing common-law vendor liability for    injury or damage resulting from intoxication abrogated in    1978 by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602 (West 1985 Supp.) and    Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (West 1985).6. COLORADO No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Kerby v. Flamingo Club, 35 Colo. App. 127, 532    P.2d 975 (1974).7. CONNECTICUT Dram shop act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102    [1985]). No common-law vendor liability. Nelson v. Steffens,    170 Conn. 356, 365 A.2d 1174 (1976); and Slicer v. Quigley,    180 Conn. 252, 429 A.2d 855 (1980).8. DELAWARE No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del. 1981).9. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No statutory vendor liability.    Common-law liability. Marusa v. District of Columbia, 484    F.2d 828 (D.C. Cir.1973).10. FLORIDA Prevailing common-law vendor liability for injury    or damage resulting from intoxication. Davis v.    Shiappacossee, 155 So.2d 780 (Fla. 1963); and Prevatt v.    McClennan, 201 So.2d 780 (Fla. Dist. App. 1967), limited in    1981 by Fla. Stat. § 768.125 (1983).11. GEORGIA Dram shop act (Ga. Code § 3-3-22 [1982]). No    common-law liability. Keaton v. Kroger Co., 143 Ga. App. 23,    237 S.E.2d 443 (1977). [649] 12. HAWAII No statutory vendor liability. Common-law liability.    Ono v. Applegate, 62 Hawaii 131, 612 P.2d 533 (1980).13. IDAHO No statutory vendor liability. Common-law liability.    Alegria v. Payonk, 101 Idaho 617, 619 P.2d 135 (1980),    overruling earlier Idaho case adhering to nonliability rule.14. ILLINOIS Dram shop act (Ill. Stat. Ann. ch. 43, ¶ 135    [Smith-Hurd 1984 Supp.]). No common-law vendor liability.    Demchuk v. Duplancich, 92 Ill.2d 1, 440 N.E.2d 112 (1982);    and Thompson v. Trickle, 114 Ill. App.3d 930, 449 N.E.2d 910    (1983).15. INDIANA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Elder v. Fisher, 247 Ind. 598, 217 N.E.2d 847    (1966).16. IOWA Dram shop act (Iowa Code Ann. § 123.92 [West 1984    Supp.]). Common-law vendor liability. Haafke v. Mitchell,    347 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1984).17. KANSAS No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability.18. KENTUCKY No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Pike v. George, 434 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. 1968).19. LOUISIANA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Thrasher v. Leggett, 373 So.2d 494 (La. 1979).20. MAINE Dram shop act (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2002    [1983]). Status of common-law liability not confirmed.21. MARYLAND No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174, 438 A.2d 494    (1981); and Fisher v. O'Connor's, Inc., 53 Md. App. 338, 452    A.2d 1313 (1982).22. MASSACHUSETTS No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc., 353 Mass. 498, 233    N.E.2d 18 (1968); and Michnik-Zilberman v. Gordon's Liquor,    Inc., 390 Mass. 6, 453 N.E.2d 430 (1983).23. MICHIGAN Dram shop act (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 18.993    [Challaghan 1984 Supp.]). Common-law vendor liability. Thaut    v. Finley, 50 Mich. App. 611, 213 N.W.2d 820 (1973).24. MINNESOTA Dram shop act (Minn. Stat. § 340.95 [1984]).    Common-law liability. Trial v. Christian, 298 Minn. 101, 213    N.W.2d 618 (1973). Recently, Minnesota Supreme Court refused    to extend liability to a social host. Holmquist v. Miller,    No. C7-83-1919 (5/3/85).25. MISSISSIPPI No statutory vendor liability. Common-law [650]     liability. Munford, Inc. v. Peterson, 368 So.2d 213 (Miss.    1979).26. MISSOURI No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Sampson v. W.F. Enterprises, Inc., 611 S.W.2d 333    (Mo. App. 1980); and Carver v. Schafer, 647 S.W.2d 570 (Mo.    App. 1983).27. MONTANA No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Runge v. Watts, 180 Mont. 91, 589 P.2d 145    (1979); Folda v. City of Bozeman, 177 Mont. 537, 582 P.2d    767 (1978); and Swartzenberger v. Billings Labor Temple    Assn., 179 Mont. 145, 586 P.2d 712 (1978). But see Deeds v.    United States, 306 F. Supp. 348 (D. Mont. 1969).28. NEBRASKA No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 244 N.W.2d 65    (1976).29. NEVADA No statutory vendor liability. No common-law    liability. Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., 85 Nev. 99, 450    P.2d 358 (1969).30. NEW HAMPSHIRE No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Ramsey v. Anctil, 106 N.H. 375, 211 A.2d 900    (1965).31. NEW JERSEY No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability established in Rappaport v. Nichols, 31 N.J. 188,    156 A.2d 1 (1959), recently extended to social hosts, Kelly    v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 476 A.2d 1219 (1984).32. NEW MEXICO No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Lopez v. Maez, 98 N.M. 625, 651 P.2d 1269 (1982);    MRC Properties, Inc. v. Gries, 98 N.M. 710, 652 P.2d 732    (1982); and Porter v. Ortiz, 100 N.M. 58, 665 P.2d 1149 (Ct.    App. 1983), overruling earlier New Mexico cases adhering to    nonliability rule.33. NEW YORK Dram shop act (N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-101    [McKinney 1984 Supp.]). Common-law liability. Berkeley v.    Park, 47 Misc.2d 381, 262 N.Y.S.2d 290 (1965).34. NORTH CAROLINA Dram shop act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-121 et    seq. [1983]). Common-law liability. Hutchens v. Hankins, 63    N.C. App. 1, 303 S.E.2d 584, rev. denied, 309 N.C. 191    (1983).35. NORTH DAKOTA Dram shop act (N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06 [1983    Supp.]). No common-law liability. Thoring v. Bottonsek, 350    N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1984). [651] 36. OHIO Dram shop act (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4399.01 [Page    1982]). Common-law vendor liability. Mason v. Roberts, 33    Ohio St.2d 29, 294 N.E.2d 884 (1973).37. OKLAHOMA Has not ruled on subject.38. OREGON Prevailing common-law vendor liability. Campbell v.    Carpenter, 279 Or. 237, 566 P.2d 893 (1977) limited in 1979    by Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.950 et seq. (1983).39. PENNSYLVANIA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973, 413 Pa.    626, 198 A.2d 550 (1964).40. RHODE ISLAND Dram shop act (R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-11-1    [1976]). Status of common-law not confirmed.41. SOUTH CAROLINA Has not ruled on subject.42. SOUTH DAKOTA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Walz v. City of Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120 (S.D.    1982), overruling earlier South Dakota case adhering to    nonliability rule.43. TENNESSEE No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Mitchell v. Ketner, 54 Tenn. App. 656, 393 S.W.2d    755 (1964).44. TEXAS Has not ruled on subject.45. UTAH Dram shop act (Utah Code Ann. § 32-11-1 [1983 Supp.]).    Status of common-law liability not confirmed.46. VERMONT Has not ruled on subject.47. VIRGINIA Has not ruled on subject.48. WASHINGTON No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. See, e.g., Callan v. O'Neil, 20 Wash. App. 32,    578 P.2d 890 (1978); and Halligan v. Pupo, 37 Wash. App. 84,    678 P.2d 1295 (1984).49. WISCONSIN No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. Sorensen v. Jarvis, 119 Wis.2d 627, 350 N.W.2d    108 (1984), overruling earlier Wisconsin cases adhering to    non-liability rule. Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis.2d ___, 366    N.W.2d 857 (1985), Wisconsin Supreme Court imposes liability    on social host who served liquor to a minor.50. WEST VIRGINIA Has not ruled on subject.51. WYOMING No statutory vendor liability. Common-law    liability. McClellan v. Tottenhoff, 666 P.2d 408 (Wyo.    1983), overruling earlier Wyoming cases adhering to    nonliability rule.