Ostensible Agencies

Personal Jurisdiction - Out-of-State Sale - Intended Ill Effects in Forum State

Landis v. Saulnier, C.P. Berks, Decided 2008, by Lash, J. (PICS No. 08-0179).
           
A person who sells a counterfeit vehicle out-of-state with knowledge that the authentic vehicle is registered in Pennsylvania intends for the ill effects of the fraud to be felt in Pennsylvania and is subject to personal jurisdiction within the state.

Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, purchased what he believed to be a rare “Yenko” Camaro at a Florida car auction from defendant, a Florida resident.  The defendant had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s state of residency.  The purchased vehicle was not, in fact, a Yenko Camaro, but was a standard Camaro with an altered VIN number.  By coincidence, the owner of the real Yenko bearing the same VIN number was also a resident of Pennsylvania.  In order to obtain the VIN number, defendant had contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.  Thus, he knew that the true Yenko belonged to a Pennsylvania resident.

Defendant filed preliminary objections to personal jurisdiction, arguing that defendant’s sale of a vehicle in the state of Florida to the resident of a state to which he had never visited and of whose residency he was not aware failed to create sufficient minimum contacts to assert jurisdiction.  The Court disagreed.  As a result of the fraudulent sale, the true owner of the Yenko had a hold placed on his title to the vehicle.  Since the defendant knew the true owner was a Pennsylvania resident, the Court held that the ill effects of the fraudulent sale were intended to be felt in Pennsylvania, regardless of plaintiff’s state of residency.  As such, the Court had personal jurisdiction under the Calder “effects” test applicable to intentional torts.

Premises Liability - Open and Obvious Condition - Distracted Plaintiff

Walker v. Drexel University, C.P. Philadelphia, Decided 1/25/08, by Carrafiello, J. (PICS No. 08-0228).

Plaintiff, a delivery person, tripped and fell over an elevated bumper on a loading dock at Drexel University.  Plaintiff brought suit against the University and the jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict.  Defendant sought judgment not withstanding the verdict arguing that the bumper was not unreasonably dangerous and was open and obvious.  The Court denied the motion, noting that defendant’s director of facilities admitted that someone could trip over the bumper, yet the University took no action to remedy the defect.  Further, even if the danger was open and obvious, the Court held that when the possessor knows the invitees attention might be distracted, obviousness is not a defense.  Since the delivery person using the loading dock might be distracted while carrying boxes and the plaintiff had no option but to use the dock, defendant could not proceed on an open and obvious defense.  The University has appealed.