That is, must a "connexity" be shown between the specific product causing injury to the plaintiff, and defendant's business activities in Florida? There is a clear split between the Florida district courts on this issue as demonstrated by Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher Druckgusswaremfabrik, 442 So.2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and General Tire Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
It is not clear, and we need not decide, what effect, if any, the amendments of chapter 84-2 will have on the "engrafted" requirement of section 48.181 that the cause of action arise out of the foreign corporation's business activities in Florida. See, e.g., General Tire Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co., 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Manus v. Manus, 193 So.2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (construing § 47.16, Fla. Stat. (1965) (predecessor to § 48.181)). Courts have held that section 48.181 (titled " Service on nonresident engaging in business in state" (emphasis supplied)) provides a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over non-residents independent from the bases provided by section 48.193 (which is titled "Acts subjecting persons to jurisdiction of courts of state" (emphasis supplied)).
E.g., Youngblood v. Citrus Assoc. of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., 276 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); John Blue Co. v. Roper Pump Co., 324 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). We recognize that by so holding we are in irreconcilable conflict with the decision in General Tire Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, 359 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. discharged, 366 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1979).
In reaching this conclusion the court relied on the general business activity by the manufacturer's subsidiary of promoting and soliciting the sale of similar products within the state. But compare General Tire Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Likewise, where a product produces injury within the state of Florida, a manufacturer's sale of like products to an independent distributor within the state has been held sufficient to meet the connexity requirement even though the plaintiff had purchased the particular product involved outside the state. See Kravitz v. Gebrueder Pletscher, Druck-Gusswaremfabrik, 442 So.2d 985 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). Although the Shoei opinion did not explicitly identify the situs of the injurious incident (the product involved was a motorcycle helmet worn during a vehicular collision), the Kravitz court characterized the Shoei decision as involving injuries sustained during a collision with an automobile within the state of Florida. Kravitz was approved by the supreme court in Davis v. Pyrofax Gas Corp., 492 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1986).
The wrong or injury must arise out of a transaction connected with or incidental to the foreign corporation's activities within this state. General Tire and Rubber Company v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); American Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, 308 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In the instant case, the manufacture and sale occurred outside the State of Florida and the paper cutter's later arrival in Florida had no connection with any transaction or business of Challenge. See, e.g., Canron Corp. v. Holt, 444 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). There was no showing in this case that when the paper cutter was manufactured in 1957, that Challenge was engaged in selling paper cutters in Florida through interstate commerce.
The fact that the particular defective item which caused injury while in use in this state was purchased in another state does not render defendant — whose same product is distributed in the state — immune from the jurisdiction of the Florida court. The court in Shoei recognized that its holding was in direct conflict with the decision in General Tire Rubber Co. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co., 388 So.2d 264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). According to the Shoei court, the fifth district in General Tire incorrectly concluded that a foreign manufacturer which promotes and sells its products in Florida is immune from jurisdiction where the particular allegedly defective product was sold to a foreign corporation which in turn resold it to a Florida enterprise.