AZ Court Rejects Request For Dismissal Of Jabiru Aircraft Lawsuit | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 12.05.16

Airborne 12.06.16

Airborne 12.07.16

Airborne 12.08.16

Airborne 12.02.16

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 12.05.16

Airborne 12.06.16

Airborne 12.07.16

Airborne 12.08.16

Airborne 12.02.16

Tue, May 15, 2012

AZ Court Rejects Request For Dismissal Of Jabiru Aircraft Lawsuit

Says Australian Company Can Be Sued In The State Of Arizona

An Arizona court said it will allow a lawsuit against Australian kitplane manufacturer Jabiru Aircraft Company to go forward despite the fact that it's headquartered on the other side of the planet.

The Arizona state Court of Appeals said that because Jabiru clearly understood that its kits were being sold in the U.S. through a dealer and distribution network, the lawsuit could go forward in Arizona. The company is being used over an accident in 2008 in which the pilot was fatally injured.

The Arizona Daily sun reports that the family of pilot Gerald Van Heeswyk of Marana, AZ, said he had completed his kit, which was sold by Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft in Tennessee, in 2007. It was first flown by a a test pilot hired by Van Heeswyk after it had passed its inspections, and then for several hours by the owner/builder. But during a flight on June 1st 2008, the propeller came off the airplane and it went down, resulting in the fatal injury.

Jabiru has no employees in Arizona, and a trial judge initially ruled that the state had no jurisdiction in the case. Jabiru's lawyers argued that the company's liability ended when the distribute received the engine in Tennessee, and that it had no way to know that it would wind up in Arizona. But the appeals court pointed out that the company had sold 61 products in Arizona the year Van Heeswyk bought his kit, including five engines, and that it was part of a "stream of products" that were specifically exported to final destinations in Arizona. Sales in the state amounted to 2 percent of the company's overall sales in that year.

In the ruling written by judge Garye Vasquez for the panel that it could not ignore the fact that the Australian company receives the "bulk of the economic benefit from its sales in 'distant forums' such as Arizona."

FMI: http://azcourts.gov/AZCourts/CourtofAppeals.aspx

Advertisement

More News

ANN Presents: Bob Hoover Memorial Celebration of Life (11.18.16 -- Special Edit)

Honoring A Great Man, A Great Pilot, A Great American -- and Above All Else… A Great Friend Bob Hoover was, to virtually everyone in the aviation world, the “Pilot&rsq>[...]

Airborne 12.06.16: SpaceX Launching Soon!, 787 AD, DJI Inspire 2

Also: P-51C 'Tuskegee Airmen', Aero-Calendar, EASA Mandate, Master Instructor, 737 MAX Thrust Reverser, LaMia Airline, Flying Colours SpaceX could return to flight by the middle of>[...]

Satcom Direct SD Completes Its Acquisition Of TrueNorth Avionics

Finalization Of The Deal Announced At MEBAA Global aeronautical communications provider Satcom Direct (SD) announced today at MEBAA 2016 that it has closed its purchase of TrueNort>[...]

AD: Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AD NUMBER: 2016-24-05 PRODUCT: All Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes.>[...]

AD: The Boeing Company Airplanes

AD NUMBER: 2016-19-16 PRODUCT: Certain The Boeing Company Model 707-300, 707-300B, and 707-300C series airplanes; and certain Model 727C, 727-100C, and 727-200F series airplanes.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2016 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC