Personal Jurisdiction — NextGen Bar practice question

A car dealership incorporated and operating only in Columbia sells a sedan to a Columbia couple, who register and insure the car in Columbia. Months later the couple drive the car through Olympia on a cross-country move, and an alleged defect causes a fire that injures them there. They sue the Columbia dealership in an Olympia court. The dealership has never advertised, sold, or done any business in Olympia; the car reached Olympia only because the buyers drove it there.

Does the Olympia court have specific jurisdiction over the Columbia dealership?

Option A. Correct answer. No, because the car's presence in Olympia resulted from the buyers' own act.Correct
Option B. Incorrect answer. Yes, because cars are mobile and predictably travel across state lines.
Option C. Incorrect answer. Yes, because the buyers suffered their fire injury within the state of Olympia.
Option D. Incorrect answer. No, because the dealership is not incorporated in the state of Olympia.

Why

Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment — a contact flowing from the defendant's own deliberate choice, not the unilateral act of the plaintiff or a third party. The dealership did nothing to reach Olympia; the car got there only because the buyers drove it, so there is no purposeful contact and A is right. B states the discredited theory that foreseeable travel of a product suffices; that a car can be driven anywhere is not the kind of foreseeability that supports jurisdiction — what matters is the defendant's own conduct connecting it to the forum. C focuses on where the injury happened, but the plaintiffs' unilateral relocation cannot manufacture jurisdiction over a defendant that never targeted Olympia. D is irrelevant — incorporation goes to general jurisdiction, not to whether specific jurisdiction exists. Without purposeful availment, the analysis stops.

Why