444 U.S. 286 (1980)
In 1976, Harry and Kay Robinson, who resided in New York, purchased a new Audi automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc., a retail dealer located in Massena, New York.1 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., a New York corporation, served as the regional distributor for Audi vehicles to retail dealers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut under a contract with Volkswagen of America, Inc., the importer.2 The manufacturer of the vehicle was Audi NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft, a German corporation.3
The following year, the Robinson family departed New York for a new residence in Arizona. While driving through Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi from the rear, resulting in a fire that caused severe burns to Kay Robinson and her two children.4
The Robinsons subsequently filed a products liability action in the District Court for Creek County, Oklahoma, alleging that defects in the design and placement of the Audi's gas tank and fuel system caused their injuries.5 The defendants included the manufacturer Audi, the importer Volkswagen, the distributor World-Wide, and the retailer Seaway.6
World-Wide and Seaway entered special appearances in the Oklahoma trial court, asserting that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.7 After the trial court denied their jurisdictional challenge, they petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge, Charles S. Woodson, from exercising jurisdiction.8 The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the writ, concluding that jurisdiction was proper under the state's long-arm statute.9
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutional question presented by the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants.10
Whether an Oklahoma court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action consistently with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 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?11
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.12 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.13 The defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State must be such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.14 When a corporation purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there.15
No. In this case, the petitioners World-Wide and Seaway's only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold by them in New York to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma.16 The petitioners did not avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Oklahoma; they did not do any business there, did not have an agent to receive service of process there, did not solicit business there through salespersons or advertising reasonably calculated to reach that State, and did not sell any cars to Oklahoma residents.17 Although it was foreseeable that the automobile would enter Oklahoma and that the plaintiffs would suffer injury there, foreseeability alone is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.18
The Oklahoma Supreme Court was in error in holding that the District Court in Oklahoma could exercise personal jurisdiction over the petitioner retailer and distributor.19
Related opinions on this issue
I concur in the opinion of the Court.20 The Constitution does not permit a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations.21 The minimum-contacts standard of International Shoe requires that a defendant have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.22
That standard is not met here because the petitioners had no contacts with Oklahoma beyond the isolated occurrence of the accident.23
Joined by Justice Marshall And Justice Blackmun
The Court today holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the State of Oklahoma from exercising personal jurisdiction over two defendants who have no direct contacts with that State.24 Because I believe that the defendants had sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to make it reasonable for that State to exercise jurisdiction over them, I respectfully dissent.25 The defendants are part of a nationwide network for the distribution and sale of automobiles.26
They knew that the cars they sold would be driven throughout the country, including Oklahoma.27 They derived economic benefit from the sale of cars that would travel to Oklahoma.28 Under these circumstances, it is fair to require them to defend this suit in Oklahoma.29
The interest of the forum State and its connection to the litigation is strong because the accident occurred in Oklahoma and the plaintiffs were hospitalized there.30
I join Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion.31 I would affirm the judgment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.32 For me, a critical factor in the disposition of the litigation is the nature of the instrumentality under consideration.33
It has been said that we are a nation on wheels.34 What we are concerned with here is the automobile and its peripatetic character.35 To expect that any new automobile will remain in the vicinity of its retail sale is to blink at reality.36
The automobile is intended for distance as well as for transportation within a limited area.37 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.38