Although it involved an automobile accident, a recent case from the 6th Circuit has bearing on the appropriate jurisdiction for lawsuits involving toxic exposures that occurred in a foreign country. In Estate of Thomson et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation Worldwide, et al, Docket No. 07-3813 (6th Cir. 10/08), two automobile passengers in a rental car were injured (one subsequently died) allegedly from a mechanical failure of the brake system. As citizens of Ohio , the plaintiffs sued. Toyota filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and under FRCP 12(b)(3) for improper venue, or in the alternative for forum non conveniens. Thrifty filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted TMC’s motion for lack of personal jurisdiction and sua sponte dismissed Thrifty on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court noted that in a diversity case it applies a two-part test. First, does the law of the forum state authorize personal jurisdiction. Second, does the authorization, if it exists, comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded that Toyota does not have sufficient contacts with Ohio to support general jurisdiction under Ohio 's long-arm statute, nor to comport with Due Process. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide did not own property, import cars, or own facilities in Ohio ; its listing on the N.Y. Stock Exchange was not enough. The Court notes that Toyota Motor Sales, Inc. is a separate corporation, and that plaintiffs confuse the two; in circumstances of parent and subsidiary, alter ego or successor corporation circumstances must exist to have the acts of one reach through to the other. Because plaintiffs did not request additional discovery to address this issue in the District Court, the Court of Appeals holds that such a request of it is improper and untimely. There is thus a lack of personal jurisdiction. As to Thrifty, the key question was forum non conveniens. The analysis initially requires a showing of an adequate alternative forum. The second step requires a balance of private and public factors listed in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509 (1947) to determine if the chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome on defendant. The "private factors" include the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and, all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. The "public factors" include court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and, the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. After reviewing these factors, the Court concluded: "The difficulties occasioned upon plaintiffs in having to litigate their case in are not unappreciated. However, this is a products liability action in which the product at issue – a Toyota Condor – was designed in and manufactured, marketed, sold, and rented in . It is not sold in the . The majority of the evidence, other than what plaintiffs have procured, is located in . The witnesses, with the exception of Colleen Miller and plaintiffs’ family, are in . has a greater overall interest in the outcome of this ligation than the . The district court was correct in determining that is the most convenient and proper forum." The case demonstrates the difficulty of using the courts for cases in which harm occurred in a foreign country absent a defendant who has sufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is established, then the sole issue is forum non conveniens. Note that unlike the Fifth Circuit case reviewed earlier that dealt with harm to private contractors working in Iraq, this instant case did not have part of the tort or contract action occurring in the U.S.; in the Fifth Circuit case, the allegedly false representations were all made in the U.S.