Question

4–2. Venue. Brandy Austin used powdered infant formula manufactured by Nestlé USA, Inc., to feed her infant daughter. Austin claimed that a can of the formula was contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria, causing severe injury to the infant. The bacteria can cause infections of the bloodstream and central nervous system—in particular, meningitis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain or spinal cord). Austin filed an action against Nestlé in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota. Nestlé argued for a change of venue because the alleged harm had occurred in South Carolina. Austin is a South Carolina resident and had given birth to her daughter in that state. Should the case be transferred to a South Carolina venue? Why or why not? [Austin v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 677 F.Supp.2d

Answer 1

Answer 4-2= A venue can be defined as the place where the contract was formulated to buy or sell the product and it is mainly the resident of the principal defendant and the place where the accident is said to have resulted. In most of the cases, the trial manly happens where the accident really took place.

If we look at the given facts, it is evident that the case should not be transferred to South Carolina as according to Article 5(3) indicates that the individual domiciled in a state may also be sued in the tort, delict or quasi-delict in a different state. The state's case is a typical example of product liability and thus the matter of jurisdiction is not so prevalent. There will be the jurisdiction of State trial court over all the cases except those cases which are required to be heard in other courts. This is the reason why there will be the jurisdiction of the Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota in this case.