固特異鄧祿普輪胎公司訴布朗案

固特異鄧祿普輪胎運營公司訴布朗案，Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown，564 US 915（2011），是美國最高法院審理的關於全面管轄權（general jurisdiction）問題的一個重要判例，法院裁定固特異及其子公司與北卡羅來納州之間的聯繫不足以對這些公司建立全面屬人管轄權（general personal jurisdiction）。 ^[1]

事實和程序歷史

兩名來自北卡羅來納州的13歲男孩在巴黎郊外的一場巴士事故中喪生。 ^[2]男孩的父母認為事故是由於固特異輪胎橡膠公司一家外國子公司生產的輪胎存在缺陷造成的，並向北卡羅來納州法院提起訴訟，要求賠償損失。 ^[3]該外國子公司聲稱北卡羅來納州法院對它們沒有管轄權，並請求駁回訴訟。北卡羅來納州初審法院駁回了動議，北卡羅來納州上訴法院維持了原判。 ^[4]

觀點

由於該訴訟請求並非在北卡羅來納州提起，且造成事故的輪胎均未進入北卡羅來納州，因此法院不能對被告行使特定管轄權。此外，由於子公司僅有一小部分產品在北卡羅來納州分銷，且子公司並未在北卡系統地或持續地開展業務，因此法院不能對針對被告的所有訴請行使全面管轄權。

結果

最高法院認為這些外國子公司與北卡羅來納州缺乏重大聯繫，因此不具備全面個人管轄權。

參考

^ Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） United States Supreme Court, Opinion p. 3, "A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the 「continuous and systematic」 affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation’s contacts with the State."
^ Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Matthew Helms and Julian Brown (Decedents), two thirteen-year-old soccer players who resided in North Carolina, died from injuries suffered in a bus wreck on 18 April 2004 outside Paris, France. Decedents were traveling to Charles de Gaulle Airport in preparation for returning to North Carolina at the time of the accident."
^ Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Plaintiffs sought relief from a series of Goodyear affiliates, including Goodyear France, Goodyear Luxembourg, and Goodyear Turkey on a number of theories arising from an alleged negligent 「design, construction, testing, and inspection」 of and a failure to warn about alleged latent defects in the Goodyear Regional tire in question."
^ Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 4, "On 1 May 2008, the trial court entered an order denying Defendants』 dismissal motions." Opinion, p. 29, "The trial court did not err in exercising general jurisdiction over Defendants and denying their dismissal motion... the trial court’s order should be, and hereby is, affirmed."

外部連結

Text of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

[1] Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） United States Supreme Court, Opinion p. 3, "A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the 「continuous and systematic」 affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation’s contacts with the State."

[accident-2] Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Matthew Helms and Julian Brown (Decedents), two thirteen-year-old soccer players who resided in North Carolina, died from injuries suffered in a bus wreck on 18 April 2004 outside Paris, France. Decedents were traveling to Charles de Gaulle Airport in preparation for returning to North Carolina at the time of the accident."

[complaint-3] Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 3, "Plaintiffs sought relief from a series of Goodyear affiliates, including Goodyear France, Goodyear Luxembourg, and Goodyear Turkey on a number of theories arising from an alleged negligent 「design, construction, testing, and inspection」 of and a failure to warn about alleged latent defects in the Goodyear Regional tire in question."

[motiondenied-4] Brown v. Meter 網際網路檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2011-05-16. North Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion p. 4, "On 1 May 2008, the trial court entered an order denying Defendants』 dismissal motions." Opinion, p. 29, "The trial court did not err in exercising general jurisdiction over Defendants and denying their dismissal motion... the trial court’s order should be, and hereby is, affirmed."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]