On April 4, 2019, a helicopter in flight to Sarasota, Florida suffered engine failure, forcing an emergency landing in a busy intersection. A piece of the helicopter blade flew through the windshield of a pickup truck, striking and instantly killing the passenger and causing the driver nonfatal injuries. The passenger's estate and the driver sued the helicopter manufacturer, the company that had performed maintenance on the accident helicopter, and others, asserting claims for strict liability and negligence due to failure to properly diagnose, repair and transport the helicopter. Plaintiffs also sued the manufacturer of an air inlet duct that allegedly caused engine failure.
In Florida, courts apply a two-step test to determine whether a Florida court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: (1) does the complaint allege "sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the [long-arm] statute"; and (2) if it does, whether "sufficient minimum contacts are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements." A defendant can commit a tort in Florida even if not physically present in the state, for instance via telephonic or electronic communications. Although the defendant gave instructions to the plaintiffs in Florida, the court concluded that providing such instructions did not constitute a tort committed within the state.
The plaintiffs also alleged the manufacturer was subject to personal jurisdiction under Florida state law because its products, although manufactured outside of the state, injured the plaintiffs while used in the ordinary course of commerce within the state. The court agreed that the helicopter manufactured out-of-state caused injury in Florida, but held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the second step – that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's recent Ford decision by finding that the manufacturer, a small company with a single facility in another state that produced fewer than fifty helicopters in 2020, had no employees in Florida and did not "purposely avail" itself of the Florida market.
This case illustrates the fact-specific analysis necessary in most aviation cases when a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, as well as the importance of distinguishing the very fact-specific Ford case. Indeed, in the short time since the Ford decision, it has not proven to be the death knell to defenses based on lack of specific jurisdiction that many aviation defendants initially feared.
Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Gangapersaud, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 19 (Fla. Ct. App. Second Dist. Jan. 5, 2022).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
