 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Beech Aircraft Corp.5/26/1999
REVERSED AND REMANDED
This accelerated appeal was generated by the trial court's order sustaining a special appearance by Beech Aircraft Corporation, a Kansas aircraft manufacturer. The underlying wrongful death action, alleging product defect and negligence claims, resulted from an airplane crash in New Zealand that killed six people. Their survivors are all foreign nationals. In resolving the jurisdictional issue before us, we confront competing extremes of allowed forum selection and presentations that are not straightforward.
Standard of Review
On interlocutory appeal, we review the granting of a special appearance for an abuse of discretion. See Magnolia Gas Co. v. Knight Equip. & Mfg. Corp., No. 04-98-00156-CV, slip op. at 6, 1998 WL 65248, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio, Sept. 23, 1998, no pet.). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we may not disturb a trial court's resolution of factual issues unless the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). With regard to legal issues, we are much less deferential. Id. at 840. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. Id.
Because the record lacks findings of fact and Conclusions of law, all questions of fact are presumed to support the judgment. See Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. 1987); Magnolia Gas Co., 1998 WL 65248, at *3. Because our record contains a reporter's record from the hearing before the trial court, however, the presumed findings are inconclusive. Zac Smith & Co., 734 S.W.2d at 666; Magnolia Gas Co., 1998 WL 65248, at *3.
Personal Jurisdiction Principles
A Texas Court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident if: (1) the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. See Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). The broad language of the long-arm statute permits an expansive reach, limited only by federal constitutional requirements of due process. See Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. 1990). The entire test thus collapses into the single question of whether it is consistent with federal constitutional requirements of due process for Texas to assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.). Under the federal constitutional test of due process, a state may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if: (1) the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial Justice. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (1985). The minimum contacts analysis has been refined to two types of jurisdiction-specific and general. Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises out of or relates to the nonresident defendant's contacts with Texas. See Guardian, 815 S.W.2d at 230. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with Texas are continuous and systematic, even if the cause of action does not arise from or relate to activities conducted within Texas. See id. The general jurisdiction analysis is more demanding than the specific jurisdiction analysis and requires a showing of substantial activity in the forum state. See CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595 (Tex. 1996). The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied if either general or specific jurisdiction exists, and a no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|