480 U.S. 102 (1987)
In September 1978 Gary Zurcher lost control of his Honda motorcycle on Interstate Highway 80 in Solano County, California, and collided with a tractor.1 Zurcher suffered severe injuries while his passenger and wife Ruth Ann Moreno was killed.2
In September 1979 Zurcher filed a product liability action in the Superior Court of California for Solano County against Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., the Taiwanese manufacturer of the motorcycle tube, and other defendants.3 Zurcher alleged that defects in the tire, tube, and sealant caused the accident.4
Cheng Shin filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., the Japanese manufacturer of the tube’s valve assembly.5 Zurcher’s claims against Cheng Shin and the other defendants were eventually settled and dismissed, leaving only Cheng Shin’s indemnity action against Asahi.6
Asahi is a Japanese corporation.7 It manufactures tire valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to Cheng Shin and other tire manufacturers for use as components in finished tire tubes, with all sales to Cheng Shin taking place in Taiwan.8 Asahi sold Cheng Shin 150,000 valve assemblies in 1978, 500,000 in 1979, 500,000 in 1980, 100,000 in 1981, and 100,000 in 1982.9 Those sales accounted for 1.24 percent of Asahi’s income in 1981 and 0.44 percent in 1982.10 Cheng Shin alleged that approximately 20 percent of its United States sales occur in California.11
In 1983 an attorney for Cheng Shin examined valve stems at one cycle store in Solano County and found that of 115 tire tubes, 12 Asahi-marked valve stems were incorporated into Cheng Shin tubes.12 An affidavit from a Cheng Shin manager stated that discussions with Asahi had covered worldwide sales including the United States.13 Asahi’s president stated the company never contemplated that its limited sales would subject it to lawsuits in California.14 The Superior Court denied Asahi’s motion to quash service of summons.15 The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ commanding the Superior Court to quash service.16 The California Supreme Court reversed.17 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.18
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?19
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that minimum contacts be based on an act of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.20 The placement of a product into the stream of commerce without more is not an act purposefully directed toward the forum State, although additional conduct such as designing the product for the forum market, advertising in the forum State, or marketing through a distributor who serves as the sales agent in the forum State may indicate an intent to serve that market.21
No. The Supreme Court determined that Asahi's awareness that some valves would reach California through the stream of commerce did not amount to purposeful direction toward the forum.22 Asahi is a Japanese corporation that manufactures valve assemblies in Japan and sells them to Cheng Shin in Taiwan.23 Asahi has no offices, agents, employees, or property in California. Asahi does not advertise or otherwise solicit business in California.24
Asahi did not create, control, or employ the distribution system that brought its valves to California.25 There is no evidence that Asahi designed its product in anticipation of sales in California.26 These facts establish that Asahi took no action purposefully directed at California beyond placing the components into the stream of commerce.27
The mere awareness on the part of Asahi that its components would reach California in the stream of commerce does not constitute minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan disagreed with the plurality's narrow interpretation of the stream-of-commerce theory.29 He maintained that a defendant's awareness that the final product is being marketed in the forum State makes the possibility of a lawsuit there unsurprising.30 The defendant benefits economically from retail sales in the forum regardless of additional conduct directed at the State.31
In his view, Asahi's regular and extensive sales of hundreds of thousands of valve assemblies to Cheng Shin, knowing the tubes would be sold in California, established minimum contacts with the forum.32 Brennan noted that the stream of commerce refers to the regular and anticipated flow of products from manufacture to distribution to retail sale.33
Whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Asahi in this case would comport with fair play and substantial justice?34
Even when minimum contacts are present, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.35 A court must evaluate 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 efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies, giving significant weight to the unique burdens placed on an alien defendant required to litigate in a foreign legal system.36
No. The Supreme Court held that California's assertion of jurisdiction over Asahi would be unreasonable even apart from the minimum contacts question.37 The burden on Asahi is severe because it must traverse the distance from Japan to California and submit its dispute to a foreign nation's judicial system.38 The interests of the plaintiff Cheng Shin, a Taiwanese corporation, and the forum are slight because the indemnification claim is based on a transaction that took place in Taiwan.39 It is not clear that California law would govern the dispute.40
In the international context, the heavy burden on the alien defendant outweighs the minimal interests of the plaintiff and the forum State.41
The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Asahi by a California court would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.42
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan joined the conclusion in Part II-B that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Asahi would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.43 He explained that 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.44 Brennan therefore joined Parts I and II-B of the opinion without reaching the stream-of-commerce question.45
He agreed that the fairness factors alone required reversal in this instance.46
Justice Stevens joined the fairness analysis and emphasized that an examination of minimum contacts is not always necessary when the fairness factors alone require reversal.47 He agreed that California's exercise of jurisdiction over Asahi would be unreasonable and unfair under the factors set forth in World-Wide Volkswagen.48 Stevens observed that the volume, value, and hazardous character of the components could affect whether a regular course of dealing resulting in deliveries of over 100,000 units annually constitutes purposeful availment, but he agreed that reversal was required on other grounds.49