Suppose that Washington had a statute declaring that its courts would have jurisdiction over any person who commits a tort that injures an Washington citizen, no matter where the tort is committed. Suppose that Sally, a citizen of Washington, visits the countryside of California on her vacation. While Sally is there, a cowboy named Sam runs over Sally with his horse. After returning to Washington, Sally files suit against Sam to recover medical expenses associated with the horse incident. Sam consults you because he is worried. He cannot afford costly litigation. He and his family consume almost everything produced on his small Ranch. Sam tells you that his ranch, from which he makes his living, is his only property. He cannot afford to lose it. You also sense that he is worried about going to Washington. When you ask him, Fred admits that he has never traveled outside California. Sam needs your advice. Is he subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington? Why or why not? What is a long-arm statute? Does the Washington long-arm statute apply here? Why or why not