Full opinion text
Opinion GEORGE, C. J. We consider in this case the issue whether California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over owners of “fast food” restaurant franchises located in another state, in litigation stemming from several incidents of food poisoning that occurred in the foreign jurisdiction. We conclude that the franchisees had sufficient contacts with California through their relationship with their California franchiser, and that the tort claims alleged against the franchisees in a cross-complaint filed in a California action stemming from the food poisoning incidents were sufficiently related to the franchisees’ contacts in California, to justify this state’s exercise of jurisdiction over the franchisees. I In 1993, customers of Jack-in-the-Box restaurants in several states, including Washington, suffered from exposure to Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria traced to hamburgers sold at the restaurants. Many fell ill and some died. Foodmaker, Inc., of which Jack-in-the-Box is a division, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. It blamed the E. coli contamination on its meat suppliers, including the Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons). Vons processed hamburger patties in its El Monte, California plant and shipped them to Foodmaker for use in Jack-in-the-Box restaurants. Litigation soon followed. Eighty-five Jack-in-the-Box franchisees from California and other states, whose customers had not been injured, sued Foodmaker, Vons, and other meat processors, in an action brought in the San Diego County Superior Court. The action stated causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, and other claims, and sought substantial damages for loss of business caused by the adverse publicity that followed the E. coli outbreak. Foodmaker cross-complained against Vons and the other meat suppliers. Foodmaker’s cross-complaint alleged breach of warranty and of contract, as well as negligence, negligent interference with economic relations, and other claims. It alleged the suppliers delivered contaminated meat to Foodmaker, and that this conduct exposed Foodmaker to liability both to injured customers and to franchisees who had lost business after the E. coli outbreak. Vons then filed the cross-complaint that is the subject of this appeal. It asserted causes of action against Foodmaker, several slaughterers and meat packers, and several Jack-in-the-Box franchisees, including Seabest Foods, Inc. (Seabest) and Washington Restaurant Management, Inc. (WRMI). Sea-best, beginning in 1988, and WRMI, beginning in 1987, were owners of Jack-in-the-Box franchises in Washington State at which E. coli contamination had injured or killed Jack-in-the-Box customers. Vons’s cross-complaint alleged the injuries caused by the E. coli contamination would have been avoided had Foodmaker and its franchisees cooked the hamburgers at the proper temperature. Specifically, it alleged Food-maker, Seabest, and WRMI had failed to follow proper procedures for cooking the meat, and that their procedures were “systematically deficient when measured against industry standards.” In addition, it alleged Food-maker, Seabest, and WRMI had failed to follow government standards for cooking the meat at a proper temperature, that Foodmaker had failed to inform its franchisees of the applicable government regulations, that the “standard” grills used by Foodmaker, Seabest, and WRMI were below the industry norm and lacked various safety features, and that Foodmaker, Seabest, and WRMI failed to require adequate qualifications and training for their cooks. . The cross-complaint asserted causes of action against Seabest and WRMI for negligence, negligent and intentional interference with economic advantage, and comparative and equitable indemnity. Vons sought damages for its own loss of business, as well as indemnification for any liability that might be imposed upon.it for injury to Jack-in-the-Box customers in other actions, and for liability that might be imposed upon it for the claims of the franchisees in the current action. Seabest and WRMI appeared specially and moved to quash service of process on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court considered evidence of Seabest’s contacts with California, including the circumstance that a majority of its board of directors lived in California and had signed franchise agreements, leases, and a security agreement with Foodmaker in California. One of Seabest’s leases and its security agreement with Foodmaker listed the franchisee’s home office address as being in Granada Hills, California. Although most of its business with Foodmaker was conducted with Foodmaker’s Washington office, Seabest conducted some business by mail and telephone with Foodmaker at Foodmaker’s corporate headquarters in San Diego. Seabest officers attended multiple training sessions offered by Foodmaker in California, and met with Food-maker representatives in San Diego before entering the franchise agreements, and again thereafter to resolve a dispute unrelated to the present litigation. Significantly, the franchise agreements for Seabest’s 10 Washington restaurants provided that any contract disputes would be litigated in California under California law, and that the franchisees would meet Foodmaker’s specifications in providing training, following cooking procedures, and using equipment. The agreement specified that the franchisees must purchase ingredients, materials, and supplies from sources approved by Foodmaker, which might include Foodmaker itself. In fact, Seabest purchased most of its food and all of its hamburger patties from Foodmaker. It received delivery of food from Foodmaker’s Washington warehouse, but was sent invoices by (and sent payments to) the San Diego Foodmaker headquarters—at first by mail, and then through a Colorado telephone exchange. Seabest also made its royalty and rent payments to Foodmaker in the same manner. Seabest employed a San Diego accountant to prepare the monthly financial statement it was required to send to Foodmaker headquarters in San Diego. During high volume periods, Seabest remitted up to $450,000 a month to Foodmaker. Foodmaker inspectors from California occasionally inspected Seabest’s restaurants, and Foodmaker once sent an auditor from its San Diego office to audit Seabest’s books. Seabest also made equipment purchases from Food-maker in California. Payment for equipment purchases for one restaurant totaled $233,217. WRMI had less extensive contacts with Foodmaker in California, conducting almost all of its business with Foodmaker through Foodmaker’s Washington office. Nonetheless, WRMI’s three franchise agreements were negotiated in California, and one of the individual franchisees executed original franchise agreements in California. These franchise agreements provided that contract disputes would be litigated in California under California law, and also controlled the franchisee’s purchases of ingredients, training, equipment, and cooking procedures in the same manner as the Seabest agreements. In addition, the president of WRMI met once with Foodmaker representatives in San Diego to negotiate regarding two initial franchises, and attended training on another occasion in San Diego. He also had telephone conversations regarding the potential sale of a franchise with a manager employed at Foodmaker’s San Diego office. His application to purchase a third franchise was forwarded to the San Diego office of Food-maker, and that office in turn returned the approved franchise and an assignment of the individual franchises to the WRMI corporation. The president of WRMI attended yearly meetings in California with Foodmaker dealing with WRMI business, and also traveled to California six to eight times to represent Jack-in-the-Box franchisees other than WRMI in policy discussions with Foodmaker. He received monthly accounts receivable statements from the San Diégo office. He purchased 70 percent of his food supplies and all of his hamburger patties from Foodmaker. He was sent invoices by Foodmaker’s Washington center and received his deliveries from that location, but he received a monthly statement for his food purchases from Foodmaker in San Diego. The hamburger patties delivered to him from that center originally came from California suppliers. He originally mailed his royalty, rent, and food payments to Foodmaker’s San Diego address, and later paid the bills by telephone to a bank located in California. He also sent monthly income statements and a yearly accounting to Food-maker in San Diego. His employees had occasional phone conversations with Foodmaker in California regarding financial matters, and he occasionally received updated training materials from Foodmaker in California. After the E. coli outbreak, he had conversations with Foodmaker in California regarding an agreement to terminate his franchises, as noted below. Finally, two WRMI employees received training in California on one occasion, and WRMI purchased cash registers and other sales tracking equipment directly from Foodmaker in California. There also was evidence that during litigation involving the motions to quash, Foodmaker reached an agreement with Seabest and WRMI under which the franchisees assigned the franchises back to Foodmaker. In addition, Foodmaker agreed to defend and indemnify the franchisees to the extent their insurers refused to defend and indemnify them against personal injury claims brought by injured Jack-in-the-Box customers, as well as the claims brought in the present litigation. The trial court granted the motions to quash, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, also ordering Vons to pay Seabest’s and WRMI’s costs on appeal. We granted Vons’s petition for review. II A California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) A state court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has not been served with process within the state comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the federal Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316 [90 L.Ed. 95, 102, 66 S.Ct. 154, 161 A.L.R. 1057] (International Shoe); see also Burnham v. Superior Court (1990) 495 U.S. 604, 618-619 [109 L.Ed.2d 631, 644-645, 110 S.Ct. 2105] |(Burnham).) Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court describe two bases for limiting a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. The first recognizes limits on a state’s assertion of jurisdiction designed to ensure fairness to nonresident defendants. The second recognizes the mutual limits on the states’ sovereign power to exercise jurisdiction in a federal system. As the high court has explained, each individual has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum “contacts, ties or relations.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472 [85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540, 105 S.Ct. 2174] (Burger King) [approving Florida court’s exercise of jurisdiction over franchise dispute involving Michigan franchisee and Florida franchiser], quoting International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at p. 104].) As a matter of fairness, a defendant should not be “haled into a jurisdiction solely as the result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts.” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 475 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 542].) The concept of minimum contacts also requires states to observe certain territorial limits on their sovereignty. It “ensure[s] that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292 [62 L.Ed.2d 490, 498, 100 S.Ct. 559] (World-Wide Volkswagen).) As the high court has explained, “the Framers . . . intended that the States retain many essential attributes of sovereignty, including, in particular, the sovereign power to try causes in their courts. The sovereignty of each State, in turn, implied a limitation on the sovereignty of all of its sister States . . . .” (Id. at p. 293 [62 L.Ed.2d at p. 499].) Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are “substantial. . . continuous and systematic.” (Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445, 446 [96 L.Ed. 485, 492, 493, 72 S.Ct. 413]; see also Helicópteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-415 [80 L.Ed.2d 404, 410-411, 104 S.Ct. 1868] (Helicopteros).) In such a case, “it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant’s business relationship to the forum.” (Cornelison v. Chaney (1976) 16 Cal.3d 143, 147 [127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264] (Cornelison); see also Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 410-411].) Such a defendant’s contacts with the forum are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in the forum as a basis for jurisdiction. (See Burnham, supra, 495 U.S. at p. 618 [109 L.Ed.2d at p. 644] (plur. opn. by Scalia, J.).) No question of general jurisdiction arises, however, in the case before us. If the nonresident defendant does not have substantial and systematic contacts in the forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, he or she still may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum, if the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 472-473 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 540-541]), and the “controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum.” (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 540-541].) It is this type of personal jurisdiction that Vons seeks to establish in this case. The United States Supreme Court has described the forum contacts necessary to establish specific jurisdiction as involving variously a nonresident who has “purposefully directed” his or her activities at forum residents (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541]), or who has “purposefully derived benefit” from forum activities (id. at p. 473 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541]), or “ ‘purposefully avail[ed himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” (Id. at p. 475 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 542].) The court also has referred to the requisite forum contact as involving a nonresident defendant who “ ‘deliberately’ has engaged in significant activities with a State [citation] or has created ‘continuing obligations’ between himself and residents of the forum [citation]” (id. at pp. 475-476 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 543]), concluding that in such cases the defendant “manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business [in the forum], and because his activities are shielded by ‘the benefits and protections’ of the forum’s laws it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum as well.” (Id. at p. 476 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 543].) According to the high court, it is fair to subject defendants to specific jurisdiction, because their forum activities should put them on notice that they will be subject to litigation in the forum. That is, “[w]hen a corporation ‘purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State,’ [citation] it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great, severing its connection with the state.” (World-Wide Volkswagen, supra, 444 U.S. at p. 297 [62 L.Ed.2d at p. 501].) This element of fair warning gives “a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.” (Id. at p. 297 [62 L.Ed.2d at p. 501].) The United States Supreme Court has explained, for example, that a state properly may exercise specific jurisdiction when it “ ‘asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum State’ and those products subsequently injure forum consumers. [Citation.] Similarly a publisher who distributes magazines in a distant State may fairly be held accountable in that forum for damages resulting there from an allegedly defamatory story. [Citations.]” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 473 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541].) And in the case of litigation arising out of an ongoing franchise agreement, the high court has found proper a Florida court’s exercise of specific jurisdiction over a franchise operator located in Michigan, emphasizing that “parties who ‘reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of their activities.” (Ibid.) A state may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident who purposefully avails himself or herself of forum benefits, because the state has “a ‘manifest interest’ in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors. [Citations.] Moreover, where individuals ‘purposefully derive benefit’ from their interstate activities [citation] it may well be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other States for consequences that arise proximately from such activities.” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 473-474 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541].) Further, “because ‘modem transportation and communications have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity,’ it usually will not be unfair to subject him to the burdens of litigating in another forum for disputes relating to such activity.” (Id. at p. 474 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541].) Finally, in analyzing the exercise of specific jurisdiction, “[o]nce it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 476 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 543], quoting International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 320 [90 L.Ed. at p. 104].) Courts may evaluate the burden on the defendant of appearing in the forum, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the claim, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief within the forum, judicial economy, and “the ‘shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’ ” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 477 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 543].) This court examined the problem of specific jurisdiction in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143. There we held that a California resident could sue a Nebraska defendant in California for wrongful death in connection with an accident that occurred in Nevada. Because the defendant was engaged in the business of hauling goods by truck and made fairly frequent deliveries in California, and the accident occurred while he was en route to California for further deliveries, we found a “substantial nexus between plaintiff’s cause of action and defendant’s activities in California.” (Id. at p. 149.) We explained that the appropriate inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s cause of action “arises out of or has a substantial connection with a business relationship defendant has purposefully established with California.” (Ibid.) We commented that if, as we found, the defendant’s activities are not so wide ranging as to justify general jurisdiction, “then jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of his activity in the forum in relation to the particular cause of action. In such a situation, the cause of action must arise out of an act done or transaction consummated in the forum, or defendant must perform some other act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Thus, as the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and upon the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” (Id. at pp. 147-148, fn. omitted, italics added, citing Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 250-253 [2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1295-1298, 78 S.Ct. 1228]; McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 223 [2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226, 78 S.Ct. 199]; and Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 893, 898-899 [80 Cal.Rptr. 113, 458 P.2d 57].) B Applying the teaching of Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, and Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, we must determine whether the courts of this state properly may exercise specific jurisdiction over Seabest and WRMI. When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. (State of Oregon v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 909].) Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, however, it becomes the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 476-477 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 543-544].) When there is conflicting evidence, the trial court’s factual determinations are not disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. (Felix v. Bomoro Kommanditgesellschaft (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 106, 111 [241 Cal.Rptr. 670, 69 A.L.R.4th 1].) When no conflict in the evidence exists, however, the question of jurisdiction is purely one of law and the reviewing court engages in an independent review of the record. (Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. Guarantee Co. of North America (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 199, 204 [252 Cal.Rptr. 363].) We conclude that this state may exercise specific jurisdiction over Seabest and WRMI. Indeed, this case closely resembles Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, which, we believe, largely governs the outcome here. As we explain, the cross-defendants here, like the defendants in Burger King, purposefully availed themselves of benefits in the forum by reaching out to forum residents to create an ongoing franchise relationship. In Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, a Florida corporation sued its Michigan franchisee in the federal district court in Florida for breach of the franchise agreement. The franchisee appeared specially and claimed that because he was a Michigan resident doing business only in Michigan, and because the claim did not “arise” in Florida, the district court lacked jurisdiction over him. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held the franchisee, through his continuing contractual obligations to the Florida corporation, purposefully had availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Florida. The high court declared that, although a nonresident defendant does not necessarily become subject to the specific jurisdiction of the forum state simply by entering into a contract with a resident of the forum (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 478 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 544-545]), the exercise of specific jurisdiction over the out-of-state franchisee was appropriate in the case before it because of ongoing franchise relations very similar to those involved here. As already noted, the court declared that “with respect to interstate contractual obligations, we have emphasized that parties who ‘reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state’ are subject to regulation and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of their activities.’ ” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 473 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 541].) The court observed that the dispute in question grew out of a contract that had a “substantial connection” with the forum state. (Id. at p. 479 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 545], italics omitted.) The court acknowledged that the franchisee was supervised directly by the Michigan Burger King office, but noted that, as in the present case, the franchisee made monthly payments to (and agreed that his operations would be regulated by) corporate headquarters in the forum state. It was important to the court that the Michigan franchisee, although he had no physical presence in Florida, had agreed to an ongoing contractual relationship under which it was established that any disputes would be governed by Florida law. (Id. at p. 481 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 546-547].) The court found it significant that, as in the case before us, the franchisee knew he was affiliating himself with a business with headquarters in the forum state, and that his operations would be supervised by that headquarters. (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 480 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 545-546].) The franchisee had reached out beyond Michigan and negotiated with a Florida corporation to take advantage of the significant benefits that would flow from affiliation with the Burger King name and organization. The court stated: “In light of [the franchisee’s] voluntary acceptance of the long-term and exacting regulation of his business from Burger King’s Miami headquarters, the ‘quality and nature’ of his relationship to the company in Florida can in no sense be viewed as ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated.’ ” (Id. at p. 480 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 545].) The court cautioned that no mechanical test exists to determine whether a defendant purposefully has availed himself or herself of forum benefits by entering into a contract in the forum. (Id. at pp. 478-479 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 545].) Rather, the court “emphasized the need for a ‘highly realistic’ approach” in which the court examines prior negotiations, future consequences of the contract, the terms of the contract, and the parties’ dealings with each other. (Id. at p. 479 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 545].) The court’s discussion in Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, makes it clear that if Foodmaker had sued Seabest and WRMI in California in a breach of contract action based on the franchise agreements, it would have had no difficulty in establishing California’s jurisdiction. As in Burger King, the franchisees here reached out to the California Foodmaker business, and clearly sought out and benefited from the California business’s multistate name recognition and organization. The franchisees purposefully undertook ongoing contractual obligations to the California business, and agreed that any disputes arising out of the contract not only would be governed by California law, but also would be litigated in California. Therefore, it was not only predictable that they might face litigation in California—it was settled that any litigation on the contract would occur in this forum. In addition, Seabest and WRMI made substantial and continuing purchases from Foodmaker in California. (See Rocklin De Mexico, S.A. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 91, 95, 98 [203 Cal.Rptr. 547] [asserting regular purchasing contacts would induce a reasonable defendant to foresee the possibility of being brought into court in the forum].) If Foodmaker were to seek indemnification from Seabest or WRMI for any liability Foodmaker suffered as a result of Seabest’s or WRMI’s under-cooking of meat in Washington, the contacts between the Washington franchisees and this forum and Foodmaker also were such that California’s exercise of jurisdiction would be proper over the Washington franchisees. The franchise agreement, after all, provided that the Washington franchisees would prepare their products in conformance with Foodmaker’s regulations, and any alleged failure to do so would create an injury that arose from the contract and from the Washington franchisees’ contacts with California. That a court would have no difficulty finding specific jurisdiction in such hypothetical lawsuits brought by Foodmaker demonstrates that Seabest and WRMI purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of doing business with the California Foodmaker enterprise. They formed a substantial economic connection with this state. To require them to answer Vons’s claim, as well, is not to allow a third party unilaterally to draw them into a connection with the state; rather, it was Seabest and WRMI who established the connection. Nor would the exercise of jurisdiction in this state over Vons’s claim depend on “random, fortuitous or attenuated” contacts. Rather, as we have seen, Seabest and WRMI had an ongoing commercial relationship in this forum. We recognize that the court in Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, did not specifically discuss the further requirement that the claim “arise out of’ or be “related to” the defendant’s forum activity in order to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction, and that the meaning of that requirement is implicated in the present case. We also recognize that in Burger King, the claim involved a contract action that arose directly from the forum contact, that is, the ongoing franchise relationship, and that the litigation involved the same parties as were involved in the forum contact. The present case is distinguishable from Burger King in that the cross-complainant was not a party to the franchise contract, and thus the claim is not on the contract as was the dispute in Burger King. This distinction, however, does not render the exercise of specific jurisdiction improper. A claim need not arise directly from the defendant’s forum contacts in order to be sufficiently related to the contact to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Rather, as long as the claim bears a substantial connection to the nonresident’s forum contacts, the exercise of specific jurisdiction is appropriate. The due process clause is concerned with protecting nonresident defendants from being brought unfairly into court in the forum, on the basis of random contacts. That constitutional provision, however, does not provide defendants with a shield against jurisdiction when the defendant purposefully has availed himself or herself of benefits in the forum. The goal of fairness is well served by the standard we originally set out in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, that is, there must be a substantial connection between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 148.) As we said in Cornelison, and as the high court suggested in International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. 310, for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction the intensity of forum contacts and the connection of the claim to those contacts are inversely related. (See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 317 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 102-103] [“ ‘Presence’ in the state . . . has never been doubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on ... . Conversely it has been generally recognized that the casual presence of the corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities ... are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there.”].) The explanation we set out in Cornelison bears repeating: “[A]s the relationship of the defendant with the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him grows more tenuous, the scope of jurisdiction also retracts, and fairness is assured by limiting the circumstances under which the plaintiff can compel him to appear and defend. The crucial inquiry concerns the character of defendant’s activity in the forum, whether the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection with that activity, and the balancing of the convenience of the parties and the interests of the state in assuming jurisdiction.” (Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 148, fn. omitted, italics added; see also Northrup King v. Compania Productora Semillas (8th Cir. 1995) 51 F.3d 1383, 1388 [nature of defendant’s contacts with forum “closely interrelated” with question of connection of contacts with plaintiff’s cause of action]; Richman, Review Essay, Part II—A Sliding Scale to Supplement the Distinction Between General and Specific Jurisdiction (1984) 72 Cal.L.Rev. 1328, 1340 et seq. [viewing intensity of defendant’s contacts and relationship of contacts to claim on a continuum, so that the greater the intensity of forum activity, the lesser the relationship required between the contact and the claim].) When, as here, the defendants sought out and maintained a continuing commercial connection with a California business, it is not necessary that the claim arise directly from the defendant’s contacts in the state. Rather, as is discussed further below, because of the defendants’ relationship with the forum, it is not unfair to require that they answer in a California court for an alleged injury that is substantially connected to the defendants’ forum contacts. Seabest argues that the standard we set forth in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, and the result we reached in that case, are “at or beyond the outer-most limits of what the Due Process Clause will countenance.” (See also Brilmayer, How Contacts Count: Due Process Limitations on State Court Jurisdiction (1980) Sup. Ct. Rev. 77, 84 (How Contacts Count) [criticizing Cornelison for considering contacts in the forum that are merely similar to the nonforum conduct that injured the plaintiff].) It argues such a formulation erases the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction, and is inconsistent with cases decided by the United States Supreme Court “insisting on a direct and concrete nexus between the forum, the specific allegations in a lawsuit, and the defendant’s particularized activity in the forum as related to the allegations in the lawsuit to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction.” We disagree. The high court has not provided precise criteria regarding the particular issue before us—that is, the necessary relationship between the plaintiff’s cause of action and the defendant’s contacts in the forum. It has stated the applicable standard in much broader terms than those proposed by Seabest, however, requiring only that a plaintiff’s cause of action be “related to or ‘arise[] out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum.” (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 410]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 472 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 540-541].) To require that there be a substantial nexus or connection between the plaintiff’s cause of action and the defendant’s forum contacts is in no way inconsistent with this standard, or with the rationale the high court has provided for the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Nor does such a standard eliminate the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction, for it retains the requirement that specific jurisdiction be based upon a connection between the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s forum contacts. The formulation expressed in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143—that the state may exercise specific jurisdiction if there is a substantial connection or nexus between forum contacts and the litigation—is not unique. The same flexibility and emphasis on the nature of the relationship between the claim and the forum contacts is demonstrated in the approach taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz Off Coast of France (7th Cir. 1983) 699 F.2d 909 (Amoco Cadiz). There, the court of appeals, in an opinion by then Judge, now Chief Judge Posner, approved the federal district court’s exercise of jurisdiction in Illinois over a Spanish shipbuilder in a case in which French citizens injured by an oil spill off the coast of France sued the shipbuilder in tort for negligent and defective design of the ship. The French citizens also sued affiliates of the shipowner’s parent company for damage caused by negligent operation of the ship, and the affiliates of the parent company cross-claimed against the shipbuilder for indemnity. The court concluded that the Spanish shipbuilder’s contacts with Illinois, that is, the course of negotiations and the signing of the shipbuilding contract in Illinois, were sufficiently connected to the oil spill off the coast of France to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction with respect to the claims of the French citizens injured by the spill. The court observed that although the French plaintiffs were not party to the contract negotiations in Illinois—just as Vons was not in contract with Seabest or WRMI—they were harmed by the shipowner’s operation of the ship in its defective condition, “and the negotiation and signing of the contract were critical steps in the chain of events that led to the oil spill.” (Amoco Cadiz, supra, 699 F.2d at p. 917.) Noting that it was particularly reasonable to permit the court in Illinois to exercise jurisdiction to allow all claims arising out of a single catastrophe to be litigated in the same court, it concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction over the Spanish shipbuilder did not offend notions of due process. (Ibid.) Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has explained that the relatedness criterion requires only that the plaintiff’s claim have a substantial connection with the defendant’s forum activities to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. (Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Wedge Group Inc. (6th Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 1087, 1091.) In that case, the defendant was a Delaware corporation that owned a subsidiary that did business in Tennessee and was involved in the subsidiary’s financial transactions in Tennessee. Plaintiff Third National Bank sued the Delaware corporation in Tennessee to enforce Third National Bank’s rights as a seemed creditor under contracts the defendant’s subsidiary had entered into with it. Defendant argued the action did not arise out of its own business contacts with the forum, so that the Tennessee court could not properly exercise jurisdiction. The federal appeals court disagreed, stating that the relatedness element of specific jurisdiction “does not require that the cause of action formally ‘arise from’ defendant’s contacts with the forum; rather, this criterion requires only ‘that the cause of action, of whatever type, have a substantial connection with the defendant’s in-state activities.’ . . . ‘Only when the operative facts of the controversy are not related to the defendant’s contact with the state can it be said that the cause of action does not arise from that [contact].’ ” (Ibid.) The defendant’s contacts in the forum had a “close relationship” with the action, because defendant interjected itself into loan negotiations between the bank and the subsidiary, was a party to a tax sharing agreement that formed a part of the bank’s claim, and deposited funds with the bank to induce it to enter into the loan agreement with the subsidiary. (Ibid.) The federal circuit also has chosen to apply a flexible standard, deciding in Akro Corp. v. Luker (Fed.Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 1541 that a California patent holder was subject to jurisdiction in an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement in Ohio, because the patent holder had sought to protect the patent in Ohio and because the patent holder had entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with an Ohio company not involved in the litigation. As for the relationship between the action and the defendant’s forum contacts, the court observed that forum contacts need not be directed at the plaintiff in order to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction, and that the “arising out of or relating to” standard is in the disjunctive, and is intended as a relaxed, flexible standard, rather than one requiring that the plaintiff’s claim arise out of the forum contact in any narrow sense. (Id. at p. 1547.) The court also suggested that the more wide ranging the defendant’s forum contacts, the more readily is shown a connection between the forum contacts and the claim. (Ibid.; see also Northrup King v. Compania Productora Semillas, supra, 51 F.3d at pp. 1387-1388 [considering “connection” between contacts and breach of contract cause of action; although some forum contacts, including meetings to discuss possible future business relations, were not directly related to the breach of contract claim, they were an “essential part of the course of dealing” between the parties leading to the contract]; Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Charm (11th Cir. 1994) 19 F.3d 624, 627 [requiring simply that the defendant’s contacts be “related” to the plaintiff’s claim, but deciding that an international shipping contract calling for delivery of goods in the forum was insufficient when none of the events giving rise to the cause of action took place in the forum, none of the parties was a forum resident, the contract was negotiated outside the forum, and the loss occurred when the ship went down in international waters, before delivery]; Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc. (11th Cir. 1992) 985 F.2d 1534, 1546, 1550 [contacts must be “related” to the plaintiff’s claim or have given rise to it; Renault’s design of an automobile for the United States market, advertising of the vehicle in the forum, and maintenance of a distribution network in the forum were sufficiently related to a products liability action, because they were “inextricable links” by which the forum resident obtained the vehicle].) In sum, considering the rationale of the specific jurisdiction doctrine, the language in which the high court has described the doctrine, and the federal cases discussed above applying the doctrine, we conclude that a nonresident defendant may be subject to the specific jurisdiction of this state if the defendant purposefully has availed itself of forum benefits through an ongoing franchise agreement and there is a substantial nexus or connection between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim. Applying this standard, Vons has demonstrated a substantial nexus between WRMI’s and Seabest’s business contacts in California and Vons’s tort claims against WRMI and Seabest. It is consistent with due process for Seabest and WRMI to be required to appear in the action in this forum; not only did they purposefully avail themselves of forum benefits through their ongoing, comprehensive and profitable contacts with the forum, but the plaintiff’s claims against them bore a substantial relationship to their forum contact for two reasons. First, the relationship Seabest and WRMI established in the forum drew these defendants and Vons into a relationship as alleged joint tortfeasors, with some joint liability and rights of indemnification. WRMI and Seabest established an ongoing contractual relationship with Foodmaker in California, and agreed to buy food supplies from Foodmaker (or from suppliers approved by Foodmaker) and to follow Foodmaker’s directions in preparing food in the Washington restaurants. Seabest and WRMI actually bought all their hamburger patties from Foodmaker, which in turn was supplied by Vons and other purveyors. Although it was Foodmaker’s Washington distribution center that delivered the meat to Seabest and WRMI, Seabest and WRMI paid Foodmaker’s San Diego corporate headquarters for the supplies over a period of years. Accordingly, it appears that Seabest and WRMI bought Vons’s contaminated meat from Foodmaker pursuant to the franchise agreement. It was pursuant to the ongoing contractual arrangement that the contaminated meat was delivered to Seabest and WRMI. Because of the contractual relationship in California, Vons, Seabest, and WRMI became, it is alleged, joint or concurrent tortfeasors with respect to the injured franchisees and consumers—Vons for supplying the contaminated meat, and Sea-best and WRMI for failing to cook it properly. The contract in California put Vons, Seabest, and WRMI in a position to become jointly liable under California law for harm caused by the meat (Civ. Code, §§ 1431, 1431.2; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, §§ 48, 51, pp. 110, 112), thereby giving Vons a potential claim for indemnification against Seabest and WRMI. (See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, § 89, p. 162.) Second, the franchise relationship, with its uniform standards for cooking food, training employees, and buying equipment, itself was a source of injury to Vons. To the extent that, as the complaint alleged, Foodmaker’s procedures were “systematically deficient when measured by industry standards,” and, as indicated by evidence offered below by Vons, these procedures were imposed on Seabest and WRMI pursuant to the franchise agreement, the contractual contact in California was a contributing cause of the injuries alleged to have been inflicted by Seabest and WRMI upon restaurant customers and other franchisees—as to which Vons assertedly had concurrent liability and some right to indemnification—as well as a contributing cause of the injuries to reputation claimed by Vons, because its meat was blamed for the illness and death of customers. Accordingly, both the negligence claims and the claim for indemnification arose out of the contractual relationship between Foodmaker, WRMI, and Seabest, a relationship that had a substantial connection to California. The Court of Appeal below focused on an asserted lack of relationship between Vons, on the one hand, and Seabest and WRMI, on the other. The court suggested this lack of relationship was critical in determining whether the claim was sufficiently related to the forum contacts to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction in California. Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s thesis, however, the defendant’s forum activities need not be directed at the plaintiff in order to give rise to specific jurisdiction. (See, e.g., Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. (1984) 465 U.S. 770, 775 [79 L.Ed.2d 790, 798, 104 S.Ct. 1473] [publisher that distributes magazines to the public in a distant state may be held accountable in that forum for damage to victim of defamation]; Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 [jurisdiction found although the defendant’s business activities in California were not directed at the accident victim]; Akro Corp. v. Luker, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 1547 [“plaintiff need not be the forum resident toward whom any, much less all, of the defendant’s relevant activities were purposefully directed”]; Amoco Cadiz, supra, 699 F.2d at p. 917 [French victims of oil spill may bring a tort action against a Spanish shipbuilder in an Illinois court; their claim “could readily be said to arise from the negotiating and signing, in Illinois, of the [shipbuilding] contract,” even though the negotiations obviously were not directed at the plaintiffs].) The United States Supreme Court has stated more than once that the nexus required to establish specific jurisdiction is between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation (Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 411 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 409]; Shaffer v. Heitner (1977) 433 U.S. 186, 204 [53 L.Ed.2d 683, 697-698, 97 S.Ct. 2569])—not between the plaintiff and the defendant. For the purpose of deciding whether a defendant has minimum contacts or purposefully has availed itself of forum benefits, the relevant contacts are said to be with the forum, because it is the defendant’s choice to take advantage of opportunities that exist in the forum that subjects it to jurisdiction. (Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 112 [94 L.Ed.2d 92, 104-105, 107 S.Ct. 1026] (plur. opn. by O’Connor, J.); Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at pp. 475, 479 [85 L.Ed.2d at pp. 542, 545]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 409]; Shaffer v. Heitner, supra, 433 U.S. at p. 204 [53 L.Ed.2d at pp. 697-698].) Seabest argues none of its physical contacts in California—by phone, visit, or letter—are relevant to the alleged injury, that is the illness caused by the undercooking of meat in Washington. It argues Vons’s claims have no connection with California, asserting that these claims are based solely upon a violation of Washington law—that violation consisting of a failure to cook hamburgers to the proper internal temperature. This argument views both Vons’s claim and Seabest’s contacts with this forum far too narrowly. Seabest, like the defendant in Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, purposefully availed itself of an ongoing contractual relationship with a business in the forum, deriving substantial advantage from that business’s multistate reputation and the standardization provided for under the franchise agreement. This forum contact bore a substantial relationship to the claimed injury to Vons’s business and reputation, because Seabest acquired Vons’s tainted meat from Foodmaker pursuant to purchases under the franchise agreement and cooked it according to the standards provided under the franchise agreement. Far from basing its claim solely or primarily upon an allegation that the franchisees violated Washington law, Vons’s cross-complaint alleged that the franchisees failed to cook the meat properly because of deficiencies in the cooking and training procedures and equipment requirements provided for by Foodmaker on a system-wide basis. WRMI argues strenuously that there was no substantial nexus between its California contacts and Vons’s negligent handling of the meat. Conceding that a defendant does not necessarily have to have had a prior relationship with the plaintiff in order for specific jurisdiction to be established, WRMI asserts that cases finding jurisdiction despite a lack of prior relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant turn upon a finding of a substantial nexus between the defendant’s forum activities and the plaintiff’s claim—a nexus that WRMI argues is missing in this case. In Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143, for example, WRMI claims we found a substantial relationship because the accident arose out of the very activity that formed the essential basis of the defendant’s contacts with California. Here, by contrast, WRMI contends—as does Seabest—that its improper cooking of hamburgers in Washington had nothing directly to do with its forum-based activities. Although it concedes that the franchise agreement gave Foodmaker the right to dictate WRMI’s food preparation methods, WRMI argues this was of minimal significance. Rather, it contends, the benefit that WRMI bargained for when it entered into the agreement was not the privilege of having Foodmaker supervise it, but the benefit gained from association with a regionally known chain. Moreover, WRMI asserts that by entering into the agreement, it did not seek to conduct any business in California, did not own property in California, has no employees in California, and never has contracted or done business directly with Vons. Finally, WRMI claims Vons failed to demonstrate that Foodmaker actually directed Seabest or WRMI to use substandard training, equipment, and cooking methods. We are not persuaded. The relationship of Vons’s claim to WRMI’s forum activities is less attenuated than the relationship of the accident victim’s claim to the defendant’s forum activities in Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143. We did not hold in that case that only an injury caused by the very activity that formed the defendant’s forum contacts would give rise to specific jurisdiction. Indeed, under WRMI’s reading of the case, a state never could exercise jurisdiction over a tort claim arising from a contractual contact. Such a result, however, would be inconsistent with the fairness rationale underlying specific jurisdiction, by which courts recognize that defendants who purposefully avail themselves of forum benefits may have to answer claims against them in the forum. Nor would it be consistent with Chief Judge Posner’s analysis in Amoco Cadiz, supra, 699 F.2d 909, or with the other federal cases discussed above, which recognize that a tort claim arising out of a contractual relationship may be sufficiently connected to the forum contact to give rise to specific jurisdiction. Further, WRMI’s claim that it did no business in California and derived no economic benefit from this state is belied by the ongoing contractual relationship it entered into with Foodmaker, a relationship by which WRMI sought to secure to itself the benefits the California business could provide in terms of ready-made goodwill for WRMI’s restaurants, as well as an easy-to-follow format for establishing and running these businesses. In any event, jurisdiction is not limited to litigation over bargained-for contract benefits when a tort claim is at stake. As in Amoco Cadiz, supra, 699 F.2d 909, in which the contractual activities in the state sufficed to establish specific jurisdiction even though they did not relate directly to the oil spill off the coast of France, subjecting defendants to jurisdiction is not unfair simply because the plaintiff’s claim did not involve one of the specific benefits defendant anticipated would flow from doing business in the forum. Finally, it is obvious that Vons is not required to prove the allegations of its cross-complaint in order to establish that jurisdiction is proper in this forum. (Edmunds v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 221, 228 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 281].) C In opposition to the conclusion we reach, the Court of Appeal determined (and Seabest and WRMI argue) that the connection between the forum contacts of these cross-defendants and Vons’s asserted claims against them fails to meet various tests of “relatedness” that they assert are required by the doctrine of specific jurisdiction. In addition, Vons urges us to adopt a more expansive test of “relatedness” than the one we have embraced. The various theories offered by the Court of Appeal and the parties are not persuasive, however, at least in the context of the type of ongoing franchise relationship that has been demonstrated in this case. We must recall that the United States Supreme Court has rejected the use of “talismanic jurisdictional formulas” (Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 485 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 549]), stating that “ ‘the facts of each case must [always] be weighed’ in determining whether personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (Id. at pp. 485-486 [85 L.Ed.2d at p. 549].) The Court of Appeal declared that it did not need to determine whether Seabest and WRMI had “purposefully availed” themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities in this state, because even if they had, the causes of action against them did not “arise out of’ or “relate to” those activities. The appellate court reached this conclusion because of its view that Seabest’s and WRMI’s contacts with California did not cause Vons’s claim. The court believed it was required to apply an extremely narrow test of causation in deciding whether there was a sufficient connection between the activity and the cause of action. Under the test formulated by the Court of Appeal, unless the forum contact proximately caused the occurrence that injured the plaintiff, the connection between the contacts and the claim is insufficient to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal relied principally upon two cases in attempting to demonstrate the proper application of such a test. As will appear, we disapprove the reasoning of these cases to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion. In the first case, Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Superior Court (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 546 [174 Cal.Rptr. 885] (Circus Circus), California residents brought a tort cause of action in this state against a Nevada hotel corporation. They sought damages for losses they incurred while on vacation in Nevada, alleging that the hotel’s negligence was the cause of a burglary of their hotel room. They alleged that the Nevada hotel’s substantial advertising campaign in California induced them to patronize the hotel. The reviewing court found the connection between the cause of action and the Nevada hotel’s activities in California insufficient to warrant this state’s exercise of jurisdiction. The court observed: “It could not be seriously contended that the defendant’s advertising was the proximate cause of the burglary ....’’ (Id. at p. 569, italics added.) As additional support, the Court of Appeal below relied upon Sklar v. Princess Properties International, Ltd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1202 [240 Cal.Rptr. 102] (Sklar). In that case, the plaintiff, a California resident, filed a tort action in this state against a Bermuda hotel corporation, alleging personal injuries sustained in a fall at the hotel. The plaintiff alleged the hotel contracted through its agents for plaintiff’s accommodations in a California transaction and engaged in advertising in California. The Court of Appeal found insufficient the connection between the activity alleged to have occurred in the forum state and plaintiff’s cause of action. It said: “It cannot seriously be contended that sale to plaintiff in California of accommodations at defendant’s hotel in Bermuda was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s personal injuries . . . .” (Id. at p. 1208, italics added.) Applying the standard it derived from these cases, the Court of Appeal explained: “In the present case, defendants’ act or omission alleged to have caused damage to Vons and for which it seeks indemnification is the undercooking of hamburgers in the state of Washington. It cannot seriously be contended that but for defendants [sic] activities in California ... the hamburger patties would not have been undercooked in Washington.” The Court of Appeal also emphasized that defendants had no relationship with Vons, and that, “[i]n short, the causal link between defendants’ . . . franchise relationship with Foodmaker and the alleged failure to properly cook hamburgers in Washington is too attenuated to say the injury arose from the activities of Seabest and WRMI in this state.” As is evident, although the Court of Appeal used the term “but for” in discussing whether an adequate relationship had been shown between the forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claim, the test actually applied was a proximate cause test as used in Circus Circus, supra, 120 Cal.App.3d 546, and Sklar, supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 1202, whose focus is whether the forum contact was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court of Appeal’s holding that jurisdiction cannot exist unless the alleged injury was proximately caused by the contacts in the forum state—in the sense that the contacts were the immediate preceding legal cause of plaintiff’s injury—is untenab