D owns and runs a small bakery in Portland, Maine. P is a truck driver who lives in South Carolina. One day, P visited D's bakery just before embarking on the long truck ride from Maine to South Carolina. He bought a dozen cream-filled doughnuts from D, and remarked, "I'm going to eat one of these every two hours, so I'll still have a couple left by the time 1 get home to South Carolina." P followed this plan, and are the last two doughnuts while inside the South Carolina state limits. P then fell violently ill of food poisoning, causing him to lose control of his truck, so that it went off the road and flipped over, seriously injuring P. Later, medical evidence showed that it was one of the last two doughnuts, eaten in South Carolina, that caused the food poisoning. P sued D in the South Carolina courts. Not only was P a resident of South Carolina, but at the time of the suit he was hospitalized there, and all witnesses to the accident, as well as all witnesses to the medical findings concerning the food poisoning, resided in South Carolina. Assuming that the South Carolina long-arm statute can fairly be interpreted to give jurisdiction over D on these facts, may the courts of South Carolina constitutionally hear the suit?