{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. v. Hall

Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. v. Hall -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall 466 U.S. 408 (1984) Fact: Operative Facts: 4 people died in a helicopter crash, and the survivors and representatives of the four decedents sued the helicopter company. The helicopter company was based in peru. They’ve bought some helicopter equipment and did a little bit of training there when the equipment was purchased some years prior. The survivors and those in the crash was in a company in texas, however they were flying in regards to a company that that company made, in peru to help with their oil piping, because peru doesn’t deal with any corporation that isn’t a peru entity. Trial court jury had a verdict that the helicopter company owed 1.1412 million to the families, but the company appealed stating there was lack of personal jurisdiction. Issue: Whether there was personal jurisdiction over the foreign company Rule: If they establish minimum contact that doesn’t offend the traditional notion of fair play and substantial justice
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rational: Although the helicopter company purchased equipment from texas before, that alone cannot be deemed as minimum contact. This is similar to the case of Rosenberg v. Curtis Brown, where Rosenburg went to NY sometimes to purchase shoe equipment. Purchasing, even if it is systematic, does not make them submit their personal jurisdiction. Holding: Texas does not have personal jurisdiction over the helicopter company in Peru Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Justice Brennan dissents he states that, there was sufficient contacts between the state and the company because the helicopter’s responsibility was made in Texas. They purchase the helicopter there, their worker was trained there, the helicopter company is responsible for any negligence that the pilot makes. They signed a specific agreement as to, the helicopter company being the exclusive transportation unit for the company to peru there. In his mind, there was sufficient contact and it was of fairness....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online