Appellants’ infant daughter died of asphyxiation while sleeping in a car seat manufactured by Baby Trend, Inc. Appellants reside in Bucks County and the cause of action arose there. Baby Trend is a California-based corporation with no registered offices in Pennsylvania.
On October 12, 2021, Appellants filed an Amended Complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas asserting products liability/strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims against Baby Trend. Subsequently, Baby Trend filed preliminary objections on the basis of improper venue. On August 3, 2022, the trial court sustained Baby Trend’s preliminary objections and transferred this matter to Bucks County.
On appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that Baby Trend does not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County. In particular, Appellants argue that Baby Trend’s sales to big-box retailers in Philadelphia County and direct to Philadelphia County consumers through Baby Trend’s website satisfy the “quality” prong of the venue test because those sales are not “merely incidental.”
On January 12, 2024, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to transfer this case to Bucks County. As to the “quality” of Baby Trend’s contacts, the evidence of record confirms the trial court’s finding that Baby Trend’s direct website sales to consumers in Philadelphia County, comprising less than one percent of its total sales, is de minimis and purely incidental. Those sales are not essential to Baby Trend’s business objective of serving as a wholesaler of juvenile items to retail chains.
Additionally, Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court correctly refused to impute the business activities of a separate and distinct business onto the business activities of Baby Trend. Once Baby Trend sells its products to big-box retailers, it has no control over where the retailers sell the products. Thus, it is the big-box retailer, and not Baby Trend, who is engaged in the act of selling the product to customers.
As to the “quantity” prong of the “regularly-conducts-business analysis,” the Pennsylvania Superior Court identified Baby Trend’s lack of business activity in Philadelphia in the following areas: 1) does not own any real estate in Philadelphia; 2) does not maintain any place of business in Philadelphia; 3) does not employ any sales representative in Philadelphia; and 4) is not registered as a foreign corporation for the purposes of doing business in Philadelphia. In conclusion, given the complete absence of any physical presence in Philadelphia through which Baby Trend conducts business activity essential to its business objective, there is no evidence demonstrating that Baby Trend's contacts with Philadelphia County are continuous, habitual, or regular.