Divided Court reverses dismissal on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction of breach of warranty action against out-of-state horse sellers whose sole contact with state was national advertising.

Dall v. Kaylor, 163 Vt. 274 (1995) 

MORSE, Justice. Plaintiff Dall appeals the trial court's dismissal of her claim for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dall, a Vermont resident, brought suit in Rutland Superior Court against Maryland defendants for breach of warranty arising from the purchase of a Hanoverian horse. Defendant Baron, a Maryland resident and owner of the horse, hired defendants Kaylor and Westphalian Pride Farm to sell it. Defendant Kaylor, d/b/a Westphalian Pride Farm, is a horse breeder and trainer in Maryland. Defendant Westphalian Pride Farm holds itself out as a breeder and developer of “world-class” Hanoverian horses. The horse sustained injuries during its trip to Vermont. A veterinarian's treatment of these injuries led to the discovery that the horse suffered from congenital and chronic bone disease in his rear legs. The sole issue is whether defendants' contacts with Vermont were sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction in Vermont. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.

Defendants here were in the business of selling horses; they held themselves out as “breeder[s] and developers of world class registered Hanoverians.” Defendants initiated the resulting business transaction by advertising, more than one hundred times, in a national market that included Vermont.

It is hardly unfair for Defendants argue that they did not affirmatively seek to do business with any Vermont resident by placing classified advertisements in a nationally circulated publication defendants to defend themselves in jurisdictions where they choose to advertise their products. We hold that assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendants will not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

ALLEN, Chief Justice, dissenting. The constitutional touchstone for personal jurisdiction is “whether the defendant purposefully established ‘minimum contacts' in *the forum State.”

I fail to see how the placement of an advertisement in a national publication, without more, is an act purposefully directed at Vermont.   The frequency of an activity does not, alter the nature of that conduct or convert it into conduct deemed to be directed at the citizens or state of Vermont. Defendants either availed themselves of the “benefits and protections” of Vermont's laws, or they did not. It should make no difference whether defendants advertised once or a hundred times. 

This exercise of jurisdiction exceeds the limits imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I am authorized to say that Justice Dooley joins in this dissent

Beth Robinson of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for plaintiff-appellant