What is the test for jurisdiction over the actions and omissions of an officer, shareholder and employee of a corporation?

Plaintiffs base their claim of jurisdiction over Ruger, not solely on his position as officer, shareholder, and employee of the corporation, but also on his "wilful and calculated" acts and omissions. (See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 785, 157 Cal.Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45.) They assert that Ruger was the responsible corporate [118 Cal.App.3d 432] employee who refused to warn of known inherent dangers in the corporation's product, failed to place known safety devices on the product, and failed either to warn of or to initiate a recall of the inherently dangerous product. ¹