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 09.19.16

Airborne 09.20.16

Airborne 09.21.16

Airborne 09.22.16

Airborne 09.23.16

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 09.19.16

Airborne 09.20.16

Airborne 09.21.16

Airborne 09.22.16

Airborne 09.23.16

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

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (09.25.16)

"Amassing four million flight hours is a testament to the reliability of RPA systems that are designed, built, and maintained by a dedicated group of skilled and innovative profess>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (09.25.16): Discrete Code

Discrete Code As used in the Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System (ATCRBS), any one of the 4096 selectable Mode 3/A aircraft transponder codes except those ending in zero zero; >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (09.25.16)

Aero Linx: International Aviation Services Organization (IASO) International Aviation Services Organization (IASO) is a non-government organization, Ground Handling Industry Leader>[...]

ANN FAQ: What Does The API Mean To You

Engaging The Aviation World's Pivotal Organizations, Interests And Viewpoints The Airborne Partnership Initiative, we call it the API, is a plan developed by ANN CEO and Editor-In->[...]

Airborne 09.22.16: NATA v Santa Monica, Xodiac And XaeroB, Sikorsky Early?

Also: Solo Circumnavigation, Redbird Migration, Hartzell Propeller, WACO Air Museum, Corporate Angel, Legion Pod, Delta Compensation Last week two fixed base operations located on >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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