Florian Hinrichs, a citizen of Germany and a member of the German military, had been assigned to Fort Rucker for flight training. Fort Rucker is located in Alabama. Hinrichs and Daniel Vinson were in the same training program. On June 24, 2007 (during the time of his assignment to Fort Rucker), Hinrichs was riding in the front passenger seat of Vinson’s 2004 GMC Sierra 1500 pickup truck (the Sierra). Vinson was driving the Sierra. As the vehicle proceeded down an Alabama roadway, it was struck by a vehicle whose intoxicated driver (Kenneth Earl Smith) caused it to run a stop sign. The Sierra rolled over twice, and Hinrichs suffered a spinal-cord injury that left him paralyzed. In the litigation referred to below, Hinrichs alleged that his injuries were caused by the defective design of the Sierra’s roof. This design, Hinrichs contended, allowed the roof over the passenger compartment to collapse during the rollover. Hinrichs also alleged that Sierra’s seatbelt, which he was wearing at the time of the accident, was defectively designed because it failed to restrain him. General Motors Corp. designed the Sierra. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GM Canada), whose principal place of business is in Ontario, Canada, is a separate legal entity from GM. GM Canada was incorporated under Canadian law and has its principal place of business in Ontario, Canada. It does not do businesses directly in the United States. GM Canada manufactured certain parts of the Sierra eventually purchased by Vinson, assembled the vehicle in Canada, and sold it to GM. The transfer of title to the vehicle (i.e., from GM Canada to GM) occurred in Canada. GM then distributed the Sierra for sale in the United States through a dealer located in Pennsylvania. Vinson purchased the Sierra from the Pennsylvania dealer in 2003. He drove it to Alabama in 2006 when he was assigned to Fort Rucker. Besides suing Smith (the intoxicated driver) for negligence, Hinrichs brought product liability claims against both GM and GM Canada in an Alabama trial court. Arguing that the Alabama court lacked in personam jurisdiction over it, GM Canada moved for dismissal. In opposition to the motion, Hinrichs stressed that even if GM Canada does not do business directly in the United States, it anticipates that almost all of the vehicles it assembles in Canada will end up in the stream of commerce in the United States and that Alabama is among the states in which the vehicles will be sold or driven. The Alabama trial court dismissed the claim against GM Canada on the ground that in personam jurisdiction was lacking. Hinrichs appealed the dismissal. Was the trial court’s ruling correct?