Grayv.American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp.

Whether a tortious act was committed in Illinois within the meaning of the statute despite the defendant having no agent in the state?¹⁰

Section 17(1)(b) of the Civil Practice Act provides that a nonresident who, either in person or through an agent, commits a tortious act within this State submits to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts.¹¹ The place of a wrong is where the last event takes place which is necessary to render the actor liable.¹² The concept of injury is an inseparable part of the phrase tortious act, and the statute is construed to exert jurisdiction over nonresidents to the extent permitted by the due process clause.¹³

Yes. Phyllis Gray, an Illinois resident, brought an action for damages in the circuit court of Cook County against Titan Valve Manufacturing Company, a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, and American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation after a water heater exploded and caused her injury. The complaint alleged that Titan had negligently constructed the safety valve and that this negligence proximately caused the injuries.

Titan had manufactured the valve in Ohio. The valve was then incorporated into the water heater by American Radiator in Pennsylvania before the completed product entered commerce and reached an Illinois consumer. Process was served on Titan's registered agent in Cleveland, Ohio. Titan appeared specially, filing a motion to quash service supported by an affidavit asserting that it conducted no business in Illinois and had no agent present there. American Radiator answered the complaint and asserted a cross claim against Titan, alleging that Titan had provided warranties and that Titan should indemnify American Radiator if the latter were held liable to Gray. The circuit court granted Titan's motion, dismissing both the original complaint and the cross claim. Gray appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The alleged negligence in manufacturing the valve cannot be separated from the resulting injury in Illinois.¹⁴ Although Titan performed the manufacturing acts in Ohio, the injury occurred in Illinois when the heater exploded, making Illinois the place where the last event necessary to render Titan liable took place.¹⁵ Titan's argument that the term tortious act refers only to conduct separate from consequences was rejected because an act must cause injury to be tortious. The statute contemplates jurisdiction over nonresidents to the extent permitted by due process, and considerations of convenience and justice support finding the tort committed in Illinois.¹⁶

A tortious act was committed in Illinois within the meaning of the statute.¹⁷

Whether construing the statute to confer jurisdiction in these circumstances violates due process of law?¹⁸

Due process requires minimum contacts with the State such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.¹⁹ It is sufficient if the act or transaction itself has a substantial connection with the State of the forum.²⁰ The trend in defining due process is away from emphasis on territorial limitations and toward emphasis on providing adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.²¹ This is particularly true where the defendant engages in economic activity that invokes the benefits and protections of the forum state's laws.²²

No. Titan's only contact with Illinois is that a product manufactured in Ohio was incorporated in Pennsylvania into a heater sold to an Illinois consumer. The record does not disclose the volume of Titan's business in Illinois, but it is a reasonable inference that its commercial transactions result in substantial use and consumption in the state.²³ To the extent that its business is directly affected by transactions occurring here, Titan enjoys benefits from the laws of Illinois.²⁴ It has benefited from the protection which Illinois law has given to the marketing of hot water heaters containing its valves.²⁵

The plaintiff was injured in Illinois.²⁶ Illinois law will govern the substantive questions.²⁷ Witnesses on the issues of injury and damages are most likely to be found here.²⁸ Under such circumstances the courts of the place of injury provide the most convenient forum for trial.²⁹ Where the alleged liability arises from the manufacture of products presumably sold in contemplation of use here.³⁰ It should not matter that the purchase was made from an independent middleman or that someone other than the defendant shipped the product into the state.³¹ The use of such products in the ordinary course of commerce is sufficient contact with Illinois to justify requiring Titan to defend here.³² Modern transportation and communication have made defense in Illinois far less burdensome than in earlier times.³³

The flexible test of fairness and reasonableness is satisfied because Titan engaged in conduct by which it may be said to have invoked the benefits and protections of Illinois law.³⁴ Continuous activity within the state is not necessary as a prerequisite to jurisdiction.³⁵ The principles of due process support jurisdiction in the court where both parties can most conveniently settle their dispute.³⁶

Construing the statute to confer jurisdiction in these circumstances does not violate due process of law.³⁷