Lincoln Ex Rel. Hurley v. Seawright
1981 Wisc. LEXIS 3024, 310 N.W.2d 596, 104 Wis. 2d 4 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nonresident's isolated, non-commercial act of shipping a gift into a state, accompanied by related phone calls and a wire transfer from outside the state, does not constitute an 'act or omission within this state' sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Wisconsin's long-arm statute.
Facts:
- Gary L. Seawright, a New Mexico resident, became acquainted with Theodore Toebaas while living in Madison, Wisconsin in the early 1970s.
- In July 1978, Seawright, now a veterinarian in New Mexico, owned an Akita dog named Moose, which had allegedly bitten a child while in his ownership.
- After a breeder in Texas rejected the dog, Seawright telephoned Toebaas in Wisconsin and offered to send him the dog as a gift, free of charge.
- Toebaas accepted, and Seawright arranged for the dog to be shipped directly from Texas to Madison, Wisconsin.
- When the dog arrived with $150 in air freight charges due, Seawright wired the money to Toebaas to cover the cost.
- Seawright allegedly failed to warn Toebaas of the dog's potentially dangerous tendencies.
- On September 30, 1978, the dog, Moose, bit Timothy Lincoln, a minor, on the grounds of the apartment building where Toebaas and the Lincolns lived in Madison.
Procedural Posture:
- The Lincoln family sued Gary L. Seawright and four other defendants in the Circuit Court for Dane County, Wisconsin (trial court), seeking damages for personal injuries.
- Seawright, a nonresident, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Seawright's motion to dismiss.
- Seawright, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review of the court of appeals' decision.
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 nonresident defendant's act of arranging the shipment of a dog as a gift to a Wisconsin resident from a third state, making related phone calls, and wiring money to pay for freight charges constitute an 'act or omission within this state' sufficient to subject him to personal jurisdiction under sec. 801.05(3) of the Wisconsin long-arm statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Beilfuss, C. J.
No. A nonresident defendant's act of arranging the shipment of a dog as a gift does not constitute an 'act or omission within this state' under the long-arm statute, and exercising jurisdiction under these circumstances would violate due process. The court reasoned that for jurisdiction to be proper under sec. 801.05(3), the defendant's act or omission must physically occur within Wisconsin. Seawright's alleged failure to warn occurred outside Wisconsin and cannot be characterized as a continuing omission that followed the dog into the state. Similarly, his phone calls and wire transfer were acts performed outside Wisconsin. The court criticized the lower court's approach of bypassing the statutory analysis to focus directly on due process, emphasizing that compliance with the statute's specific language is the necessary first step. Even if the statute were met, Seawright's isolated, non-commercial contacts with Wisconsin were insufficient to satisfy the 'minimum contacts' required by the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict, two-step analytical framework for personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin, requiring plaintiffs to first satisfy the literal terms of the long-arm statute before a court considers due process. It narrowly construes the 'act or omission within this state' provision, refusing to extend it to out-of-state acts with in-state consequences in a non-commercial context. The ruling protects individuals from being sued in distant forums based on isolated, gratuitous transactions, thereby reinforcing the territorial limits on a state court's power over nonresidents.
