Asahi Metal Industry, a Japanese corporation, manufactured valve assemblies in Japan and sold them to tire manufacturers including Cheng Shin (a Taiwanese corporation) from 1978 to 1982. Cheng Shin sold tires all over the world, including in California. On September 23, 1978, in Solano County, California, Gary Zurcher was injured riding his motorcycle. His wife was killed. He filed a product liability action against Cheng Shin, the manufacturer of his motorcycle's tires, alleging that the tires were defective. Cheng Shin filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnification from Asahi. Cheng Shin settled with Zurcher. However, Cheng Shin pressed its action against Asahi. The California Supreme Court held that California state courts possessed personal jurisdiction over Asahi, and Asahi sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case presented the question of whether a dispute between a Taiwanese company and a Japanese company with the above-described relationship to California should be heard by the California courts. In other words, did the California courts have personal jurisdiction over Asahi?
1. Why did the Court refuse to hold that the California courts had personal jurisdiction over Asahi?
2. In what activities would Asahi need to have engaged in order for the Court to determine that it had purposefully availed itself of California law? Are some of these activities more important than others? If so, which ones?
3. Did the Court give adequate weight to California's interest in the safety of products distributed in the state? Why or why not?