Wright v. Yackley - 459 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1972)

Rule:

Idaho Code §§ 5-514 through 5-517 are designed to provide a forum for Idaho residents. As such, the law is remedial legislation of the most fundamental nature. It is to be liberally construed. The legislature, in adopting Idaho Code §§ 5-514 through 5-517, intended to exercise all the jurisdiction available to the State of Idaho under the due process clause of the United States Constitution. 

Facts:

Appellant patient was treated by appellee doctor in South Dakota. Appellee prescribed medicine for appellant and renewed the prescriptions for her when she moved to Idaho. Appellant filed a medical malpractice suit against appellee claiming she was injured by use of the prescribed drugs. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, and appellant sought review. 

Issue:

Did the district court err in dismissing the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that exercise of jurisdiction over appellee would have been unreasonable. Appellee made no systematic or continuing effort to provide services in Idaho. Appellant's residency had no relevance to the services provided by appellee, who did not purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting business within Idaho. The interest of Idaho in protecting its citizens was outweighed by the citizens' access to medical services wherever needed. The court concluded that no tort was committed within Idaho that would constitutionally confer jurisdiction under the state long arm statute, Idaho Code § 5-514. The mere foreseeability that appellant would return to Idaho was insufficient to make Idaho's exercise of jurisdiction over appellee proper. Thus, the order of dismissal was affirmed.