Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc. (2020)

Summary:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s majority held that Pennsylvania courts could exercise jurisdiction over a New Jersey company facing injury claims from an Indiana resident for an injury that occurred in Indiana, even though the company was neither domiciled nor doing business in Pennsylvania. Instead, the Court’s majority adopted an approach in which a defendant’s unrelated contacts in Pennsylvania were sufficient to justify jurisdiction.

The Verdict:

The majority adopted a standard for personal jurisdiction that not only violated recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent but continues to turn Pennsylvania—Philadelphia, in particular—into a resolution forum for out-of-state mass tort claims with virtually no connection to the commonwealth. Pennsylvania trial lawyers will benefit financially from the ability to compile plaintiffs from all over the country and file one action in Pennsylvania, enhancing the pressure against national companies.

Background:

Hammons is a mass tort case involving claims that a device used to treat the plaintiff’s prolapsed bladder failed and caused further injury. The plaintiff, who sued in Philadelphia, received massive jury awards for compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant appealed.

In 2017, while Hammons was pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), holding that state court jurisdiction must premise on an “adequate link” between a defendant’s in-state conduct and the plaintiff’s injury. The top U.S. court specifically rejected a broad view of jurisdiction premised on the defendant’s unrelated in-state activity.

However, Justice Baer, writing for the majority, concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court had not clearly rejected prior precedent that may allow for a more expansive exercise of jurisdiction. Furthermore, he argued the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in Hammons were more closely related to the defendant’s contacts with Pennsylvania.

Chief Justice Saylor dissented, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers precluded the majority’s expansive view of jurisdiction.

Opinions:

Majority Opinion (Hon. Max Baer, joined by the Hon. Debra Todd, Hon. Christine Donohue, Hon. Kevin M. Dougherty, Hon. David N. Wecht, and Hon. Sallie Updyke Mundy)

Concurring Opinion (Justice Donohue, joined by Justice Wecht)

Dissenting Opinion (Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor)