Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) (helicopter crash in Peru)

a.       Facts- Δ is a Colombian corporation that owns and operates helicopters and contracts these services. Π are relatives of 4 American decedents, who were employed by another corp, who died in a helicopter crash which was owned and operated by Δ. In negotiating the contract with Π’s employer, Δ’s president was in Tex. Further, Δ bought helicopters from Tex-based corp, and sent their employees to train in Tex. Π brought suit against Δ for wrongful death in a Tex Ct. Δ argues that Jx is NOT proper b/c International Shoe contacts are not present.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Π, Tex Sup Ct affirmed Jx, U.S. Sup Ct reversed

c.       Issue- Whether purchasing from the forum State and training employees in the forum State, even if regularly, constitute the “continuous and systematic” (Perkins) requirements for exercising Jx over a claim that did NOT arise from these purchases or training (contacts)

d.      Holding- No, purchases and training, even if regularly, are NOT enough to subject a corporation to Jx

                                                              i.      Dissent: Brennan, J. – While the claim did not “arise” from Δ’s contacts, they were “related” to it. Majority has “arise” and “related” confused. Πs claim negligence of the pilot, who was trained in Tex. This “related” contact is sufficient to subject Δ.

e.       Rule- A Δ MUST have “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum State for that State to exercise in personam Jx over that Δ, unless Δ’s contacts are the related to the cause of action

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      Perkins: Δ is a Philippine corporation with an office in Ohio. Company files are in that office, director’s meetings are in that office, checks were drawn on active Ohio bank accounts. Ct held that “general Jx” over the Δ was proper b/c Δ’s acts were considered “continuous and systematic”

                                                            ii.      Rosenberg: Mere purchases are NOT considered “continuous and systematic”

                                                          iii.      MAIN POINT: The deaths did NOT arise from the contacts Δ had w/ Tex, therefore, general Jx is improper. If the acts DID arise from Δ’s contacts, specific Jx may be found

                                                          iv.      The training was NOT an isolated act…it was part of the purchase

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      The trip to Tex by the Δ’s CEO is NOT enough

                                                            ii.      To exercise specific Jx, Π must show that the deaths arose from Δ’s contacts

                                                          iii.      QUESTION for Gen Jx is whether the contacts are “continuous and systematic”