inline"> 27 Argued and submitted November 10, 2020, affirmed January 12, 2022 William COX and Diosdada “Josie” Cox, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HP INC., dba HP Computing and Printing, Inc., a foreign corporation; and Charter Mechanical Contractors, Inc., dba Charter Mechanical, an Oregon corporation, Defendants, and SPIRAX SARCO, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant-Respondent. HP INC., dba HP Computing and Printing, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. TÜV RHEINLAND OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation; and Proton Energy Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation, Third-Party Defendants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 19CV14525; A172614 504 P3d 52


    After William Cox sustained injuries from an explosion of a hydrogen generator, plaintiffs brought claims against defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. (Spirax),
an entity that supplied a component part to the generator’s manufacturer. On
appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred when it granted Spirax’s motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Held: Spirax’s activities in Oregon
were insufficiently related to plaintiffs’ claims so as to support the exercise of
personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it granted
Spirax’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    Affirmed.
28                                               Cox v. HP Inc.

     Jerry B. Hodson, Judge.
   J. Randolph Pickett argued the cause for appellants.
Also on the briefs were R. Brendan Dummigan, Kimberly
O. Weingart, Shangar S. Meman, and Pickett Dummigan
McCall LLP, and Matthew D. Kaplan and Kaplan Law,
LLC.
   Nicholas Kampars argued the cause for respondent. Also
on the brief was Wildwood Law Group, LLC.
  Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge,
and DeVore, Senior Judge.*
     DeVORE, S. J.
     Affirmed.




______________
   * Mooney, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore.
Cite as

317 Or App 27

(2022) 29

DeVORE, S. J.
William Cox was severely injured when a hydrogen
generator exploded at HP Inc.’s (HP) campus in Corvallis.
Cox and his wife brought claims for personal injuries
against a number of defendants. Defendant Spirax Sarco,
Inc. (Spirax) is an entity that supplied a component part—a
drain trap—to the generator’s manufacturer, third-party
defendant Proton Energy Systems, Inc. (Proton). In this
appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred when
it granted Spirax’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Given the record before us, we conclude that
Spirax’s activities in Oregon lack the relationship to plaintiffs’ claims that due process requires. For that reason,
the trial court did not err in concluding that Oregon state
courts lack personal jurisdiction to resolve plaintiffs’ claims
against Spirax. We affirm.
I. FACTS
Spirax is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in South Carolina. It manufactures a
range of products, including drain traps, and it sells systems for the control and efficient use of steam, air, and other
industrial fluids to commercial users. Proton purchased several FA-150 drain traps from Spirax, which Spirax shipped
from its South Carolina location to Proton’s manufacturing facility in Connecticut. Proton incorporated the FA-150
drain traps into its hydrogen generators,1 one of which was
the generator at issue in this case. Proton would also resell
drain traps separately if a customer asked.
In 2018, HP purchased a hydrogen generator from
Proton and had it installed at HP’s Corvallis campus. Cox
worked for Proton as a technician and was servicing the
generator when it exploded.
Plaintiffs brought claims for products liability and
negligence against Spirax, alleging that the drain traps
were defectively designed and manufactured “in that they
allowed the emission of hydrogen through the Condensate

1
A hydrogen generator is a piece of equipment that produces hydrogen from
water.
30 Cox v. HP Inc.

Drain Traps at a time when leakage of hydrogen was neither authorized nor permitted,” that the drain traps failed
to contain a warning about the potential danger of hydrogen leakage, and that they were not adequately inspected to
reveal the danger of hydrogen leakage.
Spirax filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Spirax attached a declaration asserting that
drain traps account for a small category of its products; that
it sells FA-150 drain traps in bulk to Proton; that Proton
does not inform Spirax when it sends one of its products
to a customer; that Spirax’s total sales for all products in
the United States from 2016 to 2018 was $280 million; that
Spirax’s total sales for products in Oregon from 2016 to 2018
was $1.2 million; that Spirax’s total sales for drain traps in
the United States for 2016 to 2018 was $1.6 million; that
Spirax’s total sales for the FA-150 drain trap in the United
States for 2016 to 2018 was $122,182.66; and that Spirax
only sold two FA-150 drain traps in Oregon from 2016 to
2018. Based on those facts, Spirax did not dispute that
it had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing
business in Oregon, but it argued that, because those contacts were unrelated to the claims at issue, the court lacked
the ability to assert specific personal jurisdiction over
Spirax.
To support personal jurisdiction, plaintiffs relied on
a statement from Spirax’s website that the company has a
“global presence with a local focus”; a statement from Spirax’s
parent company’s annual report that the company planned
to increase its direct sales presence in the western United
States; and Spirax’s reported $1.2 million in direct sales in
Oregon from 2016 to 2018. With all that, plaintiffs asserted,
Spirax had sufficient contacts with Oregon for its courts to
exercise personal jurisdiction over Spirax. Plaintiffs added
that a stream of commerce theory would support personal
jurisdiction, because the injury occurred in Oregon and
because Spirax sold its drain traps to a nationwide manufacturer and distributor, thereby purposefully availing itself
of doing business in Oregon.
Unpersuaded, the trial court granted Spirax’s motion
to dismiss.
Cite as

317 Or App 27

 (2022)                               31

                         II. LAW
          In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we consider the
facts as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, any relevant supporting affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties. Robinson v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.,

354 Or 572, 576

316 P3d 287

 (2013), abrogated in part on other grounds
by Cox v. HP Inc.,

368 Or 477, 494

492 P3d 1245

 (2021).
Plaintiffs bear the burden of alleging and proving facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction over a particular defendant.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress