Camelback Ski Corp. v. Behning
1986 Md. LEXIS 277, 513 A.2d 874, 307 Md. 270 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a cause of action unrelated to the defendant's in-state activities, the defendant's contacts must be continuous and systematic. Random, sporadic, or fortuitous contacts are insufficient to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Camelback Ski Corporation (Camelback), a Pennsylvania corporation, owned and operated a ski resort in Pennsylvania's Poconos mountains.
- Ralph Behning, a Maryland resident, was skiing at Camelback's resort in February 1980.
- While skiing, Behning fell and suffered severe and permanent injuries.
- Camelback's primary marketing area was eastern Pennsylvania, the New York metropolitan area, and northern New Jersey.
- Camelback's activities with connections to Maryland included: a single, one-day visit by a sales representative; sending brochures to 5-6 Maryland ski shops upon their request in a given year; providing information for a ski magazine distributed in Maryland; and maintaining a toll-free number that was incidentally accessible from Maryland.
- The Behnings conceded that their trip to Camelback was not prompted by any of Camelback's solicitation activities in Maryland.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Behning and his wife sued Camelback Ski Corporation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, a state trial court.
- Camelback filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court judge, after initially denying the motion, reconsidered and granted the dismissal, finding Camelback's contacts with Maryland were insufficient to satisfy due process.
- The Behnings, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that jurisdiction was proper.
- Camelback, as the petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Pennsylvania corporation's sporadic and limited solicitation of business in Maryland, which is unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action, constitute sufficient minimum contacts to allow a Maryland court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the corporation consistent with the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - McAuliffe, Judge
No. A Pennsylvania corporation's sporadic and limited solicitation of business in Maryland does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts to allow a Maryland court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the corporation consistent with the Due Process Clause. The court distinguished between specific jurisdiction, which applies when a lawsuit arises from a defendant's contacts with the forum state, and general jurisdiction, which applies when the suit is unrelated to those contacts. Because Behning’s injury in Pennsylvania did not arise from Camelback’s activities in Maryland, general jurisdiction is required. The standard for general jurisdiction, established in cases like Perkins and Helicopteros, demands that the defendant have “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state. The court found Camelback's contacts—an isolated sales trip, responsive mailings of brochures, providing information for an unpaid listing, and an incidental toll-free number—were merely “random, sporadic, and in some cases fortuitous.” These activities do not demonstrate that Camelback purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Maryland, nor were they substantial enough to make it reasonable for Camelback to anticipate being sued in Maryland for a tort that occurred in Pennsylvania.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the distinction between general and specific personal jurisdiction, reinforcing the high standard required for general jurisdiction. The court's decision illustrates that minimal and untargeted marketing efforts that reach a state are insufficient to subject a foreign corporation to suit there for causes of action unrelated to those efforts. It emphasizes that due process protections for a defendant can override a state's interest in providing a forum for its residents. The ruling serves as a strong precedent against finding general jurisdiction based on attenuated and non-systematic commercial contacts.
