Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.

2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

1 Cases that cite this headnote

952 A.2d 688
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
[2] Courts
John and Susan HAAS, H/W, Appellants Presumptions and Burden of Proof as to
v. Jurisdiction
FOUR SEASONS CAMPGROUND, INC., Appellee. The burden of proof initially rests upon the
party contesting personal jurisdiction; once
Argued May 14, 2008. that party has provided proof, the burden
| then shifts to the non-moving party to adduce
Filed June 26, 2008. evidence demonstrating there is a basis for
asserting jurisdiction over the moving party.
Synopsis
Background: Campers who were Pennsylvania residents 1 Cases that cite this headnote
brought personal injury action against New Jersey
corporation that owned New Jersey campground. The
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil [3] Courts
Division, No. May Term, 2006 No. 00483, Manfredi, J., Torts in general
dismissed complaint and sustained preliminary objection To determine whether nonresident
alleging lack of jurisdiction. Campers appealed. corporation that owned New Jersey
campground garnered sufficient contacts with
Pennsylvania such that specific personal
jurisdiction could be established pursuant
Holdings: The Superior Court, No. 2543 EDA 2007,
to long-arm statute, court had to ascertain
Tamilia, J., held that:
the nature and quality of corporation's
commercial activity conducted over the
[1] corporation's website and brochures were not sufficient
Internet, in Pennsylvania residents' personal
minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to exercise specific
injury action arising from campground
personal jurisdiction over it, and
accident. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).

[2] corporation lacked minimum contacts to exercise Cases that cite this headnote
general personal jurisdiction over it.

[4] Courts
Affirmed. Unrelated contacts and activities; general
jurisdiction
Courts
Related contacts and activities; specific
West Headnotes (14)
jurisdiction
Regardless of whether general or specific in
[1] Appeal and Error personam jurisdiction is asserted, the propriety
Extent of Review Dependent on Nature of such an exercise must be tested against
of Decision Appealed from the state long-arm statute and the due
In determining whether the trial court process clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; 42
properly sustained preliminary objections, the Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).
appellate court must examine the averments
in the complaint, together with the documents 1 Cases that cite this headnote
and exhibits attached thereto, in order to
evaluate the sufficiency of the facts averred. [5] Constitutional Law

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

Non-residents in general residents' personal injury action arising from

In order for the exercise of personal campground accident, where corporation did
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to not allow seasonal booking via its website,
meet constitutional muster under due process residents drove to New Jersey to sign seasonal
clause, the defendant's contacts with the contract, and accident occurred in New Jersey
forum state must be such that the defendant at campground. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).
could reasonably anticipate being called to
Cases that cite this headnote
defend itself in the forum; the defendant
must have purposefully directed its activities
to the forum and conducted itself in a [9] Courts
manner indicating that it has availed itself Internet use
to the forum's privileges and benefits such Mere presence of an internet website without
that it should also be subjected to the more is not sufficient to subject a nonresident
forum state's laws and regulations. U.S.C.A. business to specific personal jurisdiction;
Const.Amend. 14. website must target users of forum state, and
use of website must engage the party in such a
Cases that cite this headnote
way that the underlying transaction that gives
rise to the claim occurs as a result of using
[6] Courts website. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).
Related contacts and activities; specific
jurisdiction 2 Cases that cite this headnote

With regard to specific personal jurisdiction,

court's focus is narrow in scope; court [10] Courts
examines the particular events that gave rise to Torts in general
the underlying claim. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a) Nonresident corporation that advertised its
(2)(iii). New Jersey campground on a minimally
interactive internet website, in two national
Cases that cite this headnote
publications, and with brochures handed
out at campground or after written inquiry
[7] Courts did not have sufficient minimum contacts
Commercial Contacts and Activities; with Pennsylvania for the exercise of
Contracts and Transactions general personal jurisdiction over it in
Specific personal jurisdiction inquiry focuses Pennsylvania residents' personal injury action
on the party's course of dealing and the known arising from campground accident, where
benefits incurred by contracting with a party website made only de minimis reference to
from the forum state. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a) Pennsylvania, residents drove to campground
(2)(iii). to sign seasonal contract, and corporation
did not have agents or representatives in
Cases that cite this headnote Pennsylvania, did not own Pennsylvania
property, did not pay Pennsylvania taxes, and
did not have Pennsylvania bank accounts or
[8] Courts
assets. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).
Torts in general
Nonresident corporation that advertised its Cases that cite this headnote
New Jersey campground via an internet
website and brochures did not have sufficient
[11] Constitutional Law
minimum contacts with Pennsylvania so as
Non-residents in general
to allow the exercise of specific personal
jurisdiction over corporation in Pennsylvania

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

According to the sliding-scale test for

conducting the due process minimum contacts Attorneys and Law Firms
inquiry for general personal jurisdiction,
*690 David B. Rodden, Philadelphia, for appellants.
the likelihood that personal jurisdiction
can be constitutionally exercised is directly Marc H. Myers, Philadelphia, for appellee.
proportionate to the nature and quality of
commercial activity that an entity conducts BEFORE: BOWES, GANTMAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
over the internet. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14;
Opinion
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii).
OPINION BY TAMILIA, J.:
Cases that cite this headnote
¶ 1 John and Susan Haas appeal from the September
[12] Courts 14, 2007, Order dismissing their complaint and sustaining
Internet use Four Seasons Campground's preliminary objections. The
A nonresident defendant's passive internet following facts relevant to our disposition and adduced by
website that does little more than make the trial court are as follows.
information available to those who are
interested in it is not grounds for the exercise ¶ 2 Four Seasons Campground, incorporated in New
of general personal jurisdiction over the Jersey, rents campground spaces to recreational vehicle
defendant. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii). owners and persons who opt to rent cabin space.
Appellants, residents of Pennsylvania, viewed appellee's
1 Cases that cite this headnote website, www.four seasonscamping.com, and decided
they wanted to lease campground space. Appellee's
website, however, did not allow seasonal contract
[13] Courts
purchases to be made on-line. Appellants, therefore, drove
Internet use
to New Jersey, where appellee is located, and signed
A nonresident defendant's contacts a seasonal contract whereby they would *691 spend
established through internet communication several months during the year at the campsite.
must be continuous and systematic in order
to vest state courts with general personal On or about October 16, 2006, [appellant] John Haas
jurisdiction over the defendant. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § and his family rented a campsite at the Four Seasons
5301(a)(2)(iii). Camp Ground, in Pilesgrove, New Jersey. A branch fell
from a tree on the camp site, striking John Haas in the
1 Cases that cite this headnote head, and causing him to fall into a brick fireplace and
then to the ground. This case arises from that incident.
[14] Courts
Following the filing of [appellants'] complaint,
Internet use
[appellee] Four Seasons filed preliminary objections
Determination of whether to exercise general alleging a lack of jurisdiction over the New Jersey
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident campground. On June 27, 2007 [the trial court] ordered
defendant that has minimally interactive the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of
internet website requires a court to determine jurisdiction and file supplemental memoranda. On July
whether website is targeted specifically to 12, 2007 [the trial court] granted an extension of the
Pennsylvanians and whether the website time for discovery and supplemental memoranda. On
is central to the defendant's business in August 17, 2007 a discovery motion filed by [appellants]
Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii). was listed for a hearing, but the motion was dismissed
as moot, upon agreement of the parties.
5 Cases that cite this headnote
On September 12, 2007, [the trial court] entered an order
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

[appellee] Four Seasons, without prejudice to file in ¶ 4 Appellants contend appellee is subject to both specific
New Jersey. This appeal followed. jurisdiction and general jurisdiction under Pennsylvania's
Long-Arm Statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301(a)(2)(iii), 1
Trial Court Opinion, Manfredi, J., 12/27/07, at 1-2.
Persons, (a) General *692 rule, (2) Corporations; 42
Appellants' sole issue on appeal is as follows:
Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a)(1) 2 , Bases of personal jurisdiction
Did the trial court commit an error over persons outside this Commonwealth, (a) General
of law by determining, through use rule, Transacting any business in this Commonwealth.
of outdated precedent, that appellee Appellants' brief at 4-5; see also Trial Court Opinion at 2.
has not established sufficient Appellants further contend that appellee has availed itself
contacts with Pennsylvania to allow of Pennsylvania jurisdiction because of the existence of
Pennsylvania Courts to exercise appellee's interactive website under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a)
jurisdiction? (1). Appellants' brief at 5.

Appellants' brief at 2. [3] [4] [5] [6] ¶ 5 The Pennsylvania long-arm statute
permits the exercise of jurisdiction “to the fullest extent
[1] [2] ¶ 3 The scope of review in determining allowed under the Constitution of the United States
whether a trial court erred in sustaining preliminary and may be based on the most minimum contact with
objections and dismissing a complaint is plenary. See this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution
Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 933 A.2d 92, 96 of the United States,” Fourteenth Amendment's Due
(Pa.Super.2007). Process Clause. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(b), Bases of personal
jurisdiction over persons outside this Commonwealth, (b)
In determining whether the
Exercise of full constitutional power over nonresidents;
trial court properly sustained
See Nutrition Management Services Co. v. Hinchcliff, 926
preliminary objections, the appellate
A.2d 531, 537 (Pa.Super.2007). In order to determine
court must examine the averments
whether appellee has garnered sufficient contacts with
in the complaint, together with the
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania such that specific
documents and exhibits attached
personal jurisdiction could be established, we have to
thereto, in order to evaluate the
ascertain the “nature and quality of commercial activity
sufficiency of the facts averred.
that an entity conducts over the Internet.” Efford v. Jockey
When sustaining the trial court's
Club, 796 A.2d 370, 374 (Pa.Super.2002).
ruling will result in the denial
of claim or a dismissal of suit, Regardless of whether general or
preliminary objections will be specific in personam jurisdiction is
sustained only where the case is free asserted, the propriety of such an
and clear of doubt, and this Court exercise must be tested against
will reverse the trial court's decision the Pennsylvania long-arm statute
regarding preliminary objections and the due process clause of the
only where there has been an error Fourteenth Amendment. In order
of law or an abuse of discretion. to meet constitutional muster, a
defendant's contacts with the forum
Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232, 1235 (Pa.Super.2006)
state must be such that the defendant
(citations omitted). In addition, the burden of proof
could reasonably anticipate being
initially rests upon the party contesting jurisdiction; once
called to defend itself in the forum.
that party has provided proof, the burden then shifts to
Random, fortuitous and attenuated
the non-moving party to adduce evidence demonstrating
contacts cannot reasonably notify
there is a basis for asserting jurisdiction over the moving
a party that it may be called to
party. McCall v. Formu-3 Int'l, Inc., 437 Pa.Super. 575, 650
defend itself in a foreign forum and,
A.2d 903, 904 (1994), appeal denied 541 Pa. 640, 663 A.2d
thus, cannot support the exercise
692 (1995).
of personal jurisdiction. That is, the

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

defendant must have purposefully the use of the internet website must engage the party in
*693 directed its activities to the such a way that the underlying transaction that gives rise
forum and conducted itself in a to the claim occurs as a result of using the website.
manner indicating that it has availed
itself to the forum's privileges and ¶ 9 Appellee's seasonal contracts were not available for
benefits such that it should also be transmission via personal computer to appellee's business
subjected to the forum state's laws in New Jersey. Appellee's website, therefore, was merely
and regulations. passive in that respect, as a customer could not purchase
the rights to reside on the campsite seasonally through
Id. at 373 (citations omitted), quoting General Motors the website. Appellants drove into the state of New Jersey
Acceptance Corp. v. Keller, 737 A.2d 279, 281 to sign the seasonal contract for the camping site. The
(Pa.Super.1999). In other words, the inquiry distills to accident happened in New Jersey, on the campgrounds
whether the defendant has availed itself of the minimum appellants occupied, under the contract signed in New
contacts necessary to vest the Commonwealth with Jersey. In addition, the continuous nature of the business
jurisdiction such that it comports with fair play and relationship between appellants and appellee occurred as a
substantial justice. See General Motors Acceptance Corp. direct result of appellants renewing their seasonal contract
v. Keller 737 A.2d 279, 283 (Pa.Super.1999). With regard in New Jersey, not in the forum state. Accordingly, it
to specific personal jurisdiction, our focus is narrow in cannot be said that appellee purposely availed itself to
scope; we examine the particular events that gave rise to the Commonwealth such that it was put on notice that it
the underlying claim. Id. at 281. would have to defend itself in the forum.

¶ 6 Appellants urge this Court to adopt the sliding ¶ 10 Moreover, the cases on which appellants rely to
scale test, as pronounced in Efford, to assess specific support their claim that specific jurisdiction lies are
jurisdiction. We decline to do so; the facts of this case inapposite to the current case, as those cases analyzed
are not such that the underlying cause of action arose the propriety of subjecting a foreign company with
from appellants' use of appellee's website. Appellants' websites featuring its services to general jurisdiction
arguments premised on Efford are more specifically aimed based on the interactiveness of the website. The other
to a general jurisdiction attack. forms of communication appellants posit for our review,
*694 which would subject appellee to jurisdiction in
our state courts, namely that customers can reserve
Specific jurisdiction
campgrounds on the website and that a significant amount
[7] ¶ 7 Generally our specific jurisdiction inquiry focuses
of reservations are made through appellee's website,
on the party's course of dealing and the known benefits
is more appropriately suited to an inquiry of general
incurred by contracting with a party from the forum state.
jurisdiction, as these facts do not give rise to the underlying
See, e.g., Keller at 282, (holding that a party contracting
claim. We will address these claims below.
with a resident of Pennsylvania despite not physically
signing the contract in Pennsylvania, was sufficient to
determine purposeful availment and vest Pennsylvania General Jurisdiction
with jurisdiction given that the party mailed the contract [10] ¶ 11 Appellants next contend the fact that
to Pennsylvania, directed payments to Pennsylvania, and appellee maintains a website noting its close proximity
conducted business with the same Pennsylvania company to Philadelphia; disseminates newsletters and brochures
repeatedly). to Pennsylvania residents by mail; purchases products
from Pennsylvania vendors; makes a significant volume of
[8] [9] ¶ 8 Here, appellee's web site and brochures direct sales to Pennsylvania residents; and publishes a toll-
are not sufficient to subject it to specific jurisdiction free number fulfills the minimum contacts necessary to
in Pennsylvania. Appellants claim they found appellee's vest Pennsylvania with general jurisdiction. See appellants'
campgrounds as a result of an internet search. The mere brief at 8; See appellants' EXHIBIT D, E.
presence of a website without more, however, is not
sufficient to subject a business to specific jurisdiction. The ¶ 12 Appellee responds that its contacts with Pennsylvania
internet website must target users of the forum state, and and appellants are too tenuous to establish general

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

jurisdiction. See Appellee's brief at 13-14. Particularly, interactivity and commercial nature
appellee maintains its website was incapable of soliciting of the exchange of information that
seasonal contracts to reside on its grounds from appellants occurs on the Web site.
because that service is not provided on its website. Id.
at 12. In support thereof, it references the fact that Id., quoting Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952
appellants had to drive to its campground located in New F.Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D.Pa.1997). We reasoned that the
Jersey to sign a seasonal contract. Id. at 10. Moreover, sliding scale test comported with our principles of general
appellee contends it has no assets, bank accounts or personal jurisdiction. Moreover, such contacts established
property in Pennsylvania, no agents or representatives through internet communication must be “continuous and
residing or working in Pennsylvania, no phone listing in systematic” in order to vest Pennsylvania courts with
Pennsylvania, and does not directly target any advertising jurisdiction. See Taylor v. Fedra Int'l, Ltd., 828 A.2d 378,
to Pennsylvania residents. Id. at 13. 381 (Pa.Super.2003).

[11] [12] [13] ¶ 13 In Efford, supra at 374, we [14] ¶ 14 A review of appellee's website leads to the
adopted the Third Circuit's sliding-scale test in conducting conclusion that it occupies the *695 middle ground
the minimum contacts inquiry for general personal of the spectrum; that is to say that it is minimally
jurisdiction. According to the sliding-scale test: interactive. There is a reservation request form that solicits
credit card and other personal information to reserve a
The likelihood that personal campsite for a specific arrival and departure time that
jurisdiction can be constitutionally then transmits that information to appellee, similar to
exercised is directly proportionate that of a hotel company's website that allows a guest to
to the nature and quality of book a room online. What is glaringly missing, however,
commercial activity that an entity is any evidence in the record of how many registrations
conducts over the Internet. This took place on-line, and the amount, if any, that were
sliding scale is consistent with made by Pennsylvania residents. See Frank v. Frank, 402
well developed personal jurisdiction Pa.Super. 458, 587 A.2d 340, 342 n. 5 (1991) (finding that
principles. At one end of the what is not in the certified record ceases to exist); see also
spectrum are situations where a Efford, supra at 376 (reasoning that appellant's failure to
defendant clearly does business over produce evidence of the amount of Pennsylvania born
the Internet. If the defendant enters foals registered via appellee's internet website, inter alia,
into contracts with residents of a precluded a finding of general jurisdiction). Nonetheless,
foreign jurisdiction that involve the the existence of the reservation request form constitutes an
knowing and repeated transmission interactive website causing us to evaluate the “nature and
of computer files over the Internet, quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over
personal jurisdiction is proper. At the Internet.” Efford, supra at 374. We must determine,
the opposite end are situations “(a) whether the websites are targeted specifically to
where a defendant has simply posted Pennsylvanians; and (b) whether the websites are central
information on an Internet Web to the defendants' business in Pennsylvania.” McCague v.
site which is accessible to users in Trilogy Corp., 2007 WL 839921, *3 (E.D.Pa.2007) (slip
foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web copy). 3
site that does little more than make
information available to those who ¶ 15 The nature of the internet has changed tremendously
are interested in it is not grounds for in recent years. The internet is global in reach and
the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction. allows businesses to connect with users in a different
The middle ground is occupied capacity than ever before. Millions of viewers' initial point
by interactive Web sites where of contact with a specific business occurs as a result
a user can exchange information of information displayed on a website. See Dennis T.
with the host computer. In these Yokoyama, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS USE THE ZIPPO
cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is CODE: THE FALLACY OF A UNIFORM THEORY OF
determined by examining the level of

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

INTERNET PERSONAL JURISDICTION, 54 DePaul website. Appellants also fail to convince this Court the
L. Rev. 1147, 1156 (2005). Subjecting a party to general mere fact that 20 to 30 percent of persons using the
personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of a “highly campgrounds are Pennsylvania residents demonstrates
interactive website” without conducting an analysis as purposeful availment. Appellants still must provide this
to whether information on that particular website is Court with some proof that these guests chose to stay at
specifically directed at Pennsylvanians, and whether the campgrounds as a result of appellee's targeted contact
the transaction via the internet represents a significant with the Commonwealth; appellants have not done so.
source of revenue stream would vest Pennsylvania with Furthermore, appellants' claim regarding Pennsylvania
jurisdiction to nearly every party with a website requesting vendors and the toll-free number are equally unavailing,
personal information. Failing to conduct this examination as this contact is not systematic and continuous. 4
would comport with neither the constitutional protections
of the United States constitution nor the statutory ¶ 19 We emphasize the fact that appellee has neither agents
protections of our long-arm statute. nor representatives in Pennsylvania; is registered to do
business only in New Jersey; does not pay Pennsylvania
¶ 16 In this case, the website makes de minimis taxes; does not own property in Pennsylvania; does not
references to Pennsylvania. For instance, publishing on its have any bank accounts or assets in Pennsylvania; and
website “only 30 miles to Philadelphia” and noting some its only business is located in New Jersey. Accordingly,
attractions located in Pennsylvania near the campground we do not find the contacts sufficient to meet the
does not warrant a finding that appellee directly minimum contacts necessary to vest Pennsylvania courts
advertised to Pennsylvania residents. See appellants' with jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT D, E. These references serve as nothing more
than indicators for visitors in ascertaining the location of ¶ 20 In conclusion, we would be remiss if we did not
the campground in relation to known areas. examine Mar-Eco, Inc. v. T & R and Sons Towing and
Recovery, Inc., 837 A.2d 512 (Pa.Super.2003), wherein
¶ 17 Appellee's newsletters are advertised in two national we concluded that a company which conducted business
publications. There is no evidence in the record that through its website had sufficient contacts with the state
these are directly targeted at Pennsylvania residents. See to be subject to Pennsylvania jurisdiction. In that case,
appellants' EXHIBIT M, at 12. Additionally, appellee a Maryland company transacted with a Pennsylvania
handed out brochures at the campgrounds located in corporation for the purchase and financing of a motor
New Jersey. Id. at 15. In order for a party to obtain vehicle. Id. at 514. The Pennsylvania company filed a
a brochure without stepping into New Jersey, the party lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleging negligence and unjust
needs to initiate contact with appellee by written inquiry. enrichment against the Maryland company. Id. This
*696 Id. These forms of communication preclude a Court allowed jurisdiction against the Maryland company
finding of systematic and continuous contact. See Efford, where appellant's website advertised, “This page allows
supra at 375 (holding that absence of evidence that you to handle nearly all of the financial aspects of a
appellee internet company directed advertising towards vehicle purchase. We've made shopping for a car much
Pennsylvanians via its website and the initiation by easier for you by allowing you to shop and virtually
appellant to receive information via mail precluded a complete the entire transaction via your computer.” Id.
finding of general jurisdiction). at 517. Additionally, the website enabled a user to apply
for employment, calculate payment schedules, order parts
¶ 18 Moreover, the owner of Four Seasons merely and schedule service appointments, exchange trade-in
speculated as to how the reservation form impacts its information and request specific price quotes. It also
revenue stream, guessing that approximately between informed users that their information could be transmitted
five and ten percent of sales are generated as a result to a third party recipient for commercial purposes. Id.
of such use. See appellants' EXHIBIT M, at 26. There at 517-518. On the basis of the extensive commercial
is no affirmative evidence showing what percentage of and “highly interactive” nature of the website and the
appellee's internet sales are generated by Pennsylvania significant portion of business conducted via the internet,
residents. Moreover, we reiterate that fact that seasonal the Court concluded that general jurisdiction was proper.
campers cannot make reservations through the internet Id.

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

input information and the proliferation of such tools were

not as obvious. See Yokoyama, supra at 1167.
*697 ¶ 21 The case before us is distinguishable in that
appellee's website does not allow users to engage in what
¶ 22 In conclusion, we emphasize when a website is
can only be described as shopping at a virtual retail store.
found to be neither passive nor engaged in knowing and
The website only allows users to input information relative
continual transmission of computer files and occupies the
to reserving a campground. There is no continuous contact
middle ground of the sliding-scale, a court must examine
by the host computer in reserving a campground; appellee's
the commercial nature of the website, specifically focusing
website does not purport to be a one-stop shop; and it
on the extent of business conducted with Pennsylvania
does not solicit a party's information to later pass on
residents via the host website and whether the website
to third-party recipients. The website does not guarantee
comprises a significant portion of revenue by the party
a reservation upon submission of information on the
objecting to jurisdiction. While this inquiry might yield
reservation request form. In fact, the website proclaims,
somewhat incongruous results given the various emphases
“Please understand that this is strictly a Reservation
placed on the commercial nature of the website and the
Request Form. You do not have an actual reservation until it
interactiveness, this analysis is necessary to comport with
has been confirmed, and a reservation cannot be confirmed
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
until your deposit has been processed and authorized.”
More importantly, if not conducted, courts run the risk of
Appellants' EXHIBIT D. The website in this case cannot
running afoul of our constitutional protections.
be a basis for subjecting appellee to general jurisdiction, as
the website is neither “highly interactive” nor is there any
¶ 23 Order affirmed.
evidence that a significant source of income is generated
by the website. Moreover, Mar-Eco was decided in 2003,
a much different time than today when virtually every All Citations
business has some sort of mechanism whereby a party can
952 A.2d 688, 2008 PA Super 136

Footnotes
1 The statute provides in relevant part:
(a) General rule.-The existence of any of the following relationships between a person and this Commonwealth
shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the tribunals of this Commonwealth to exercise general
personal jurisdiction over such person, or his personal representative in the case of an individual, and to enable
such tribunals to render personal orders against such person or representative:
...
(2) Corporations.-
...
(iii) The carrying on of a continuous and systematic part of its general business within this Commonwealth.
2 The statute provides as follows:
(a) General rule.-A tribunal of this Commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person (or the personal
representative of a deceased individual who would be subject to jurisdiction under this subsection if not deceased)
who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person:
(1) Transacting any business in this Commonwealth. Without excluding other acts which may constitute transacting
business in this Commonwealth, any of the following shall constitute transacting business for the purpose of this
paragraph:
(i) The doing by any person in this Commonwealth of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing
pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object.
(ii) The doing of a single act in this Commonwealth for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or
otherwise accomplishing an object with the intention of initiating a series of such acts.
(iii) The shipping of merchandise directly or indirectly into or through this Commonwealth.
(iv) The engaging in any business or profession within this Commonwealth, whether or not such business requires
license or approval by any government unit of this Commonwealth.
(v) The ownership, use or possession of any real property situate[d] within this Commonwealth.

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8

Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (2008)
2008 PA Super 136

3 Although decisions made by the federal courts are not binding, they are instructive nevertheless. See Efford, supra at 374.
4 Deposition testimony by the owner of Four Seasons Campground shows that the business utilized a candy distributor
from Pennsylvania only once a year via UPS. See EXHIBIT M, at 46. Additionally, the existence of a toll-free number,
without more, is too speculative to be probative of purposeful availment.

End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9