PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. v. REYNO235 Opinion <strong>of</strong> the CourtBlackpool to Perth. <strong>The</strong> pilot and five passengers werekilled instantly. <strong>The</strong> decedents were all Scottish subjectsand residents, as are their heirs and next <strong>of</strong> kin. <strong>The</strong>re wereno eyewitnesses to the accident. At the time <strong>of</strong> the crashthe plane was subject to Scottish air traffic control.<strong>The</strong> aircraft, a twin-engine Piper Aztec, was manufacturedin Pennsylvania by petitioner Piper <strong>Aircraft</strong> Co. (Piper).<strong>The</strong> propellers were manufactured in Ohio by petitionerHartzell Propeller, Inc. (Hartzell). At the time <strong>of</strong> the crashthe aircraft was registered in Great Britain and was ownedand maintained by Air Navigation and Trading Co., Ltd. (AirNavigation). It was operated by McDonald Aviation, Ltd.(McDonald), a Scottish air taxi service. Both Air Navigationand McDonald were organized in the United Kingdom. <strong>The</strong>wreckage <strong>of</strong> the plane is now in a hangar in Farnsborough,England.<strong>The</strong> British Department <strong>of</strong> Trade investigated the accidentshortly after it occurred. A preliminary report found thatthe plane crashed after developing a spin, and suggested thatmechanical failure in the plane or the propeller was responsible.At Hartzell's request, this report was reviewed by athree-member Review Board, which held a 9-day adversaryhearing attended by all interested parties. <strong>The</strong> ReviewBoard found no evidence <strong>of</strong> defective equipment and indicatedthat pilot error may have contributed to the accident.<strong>The</strong> pilot, who had obtained his commercial pilot's licenseonly three months earlier, was flying over high ground at analtitude considerably lower than the minimum height requiredby his company's operations manual.In July 1977, a California probate court appointed respondentGaynell <strong>Reyno</strong> administratrix <strong>of</strong> the estates <strong>of</strong> the fivepassengers. <strong>Reyno</strong> is not related to and does not know any<strong>of</strong> the decedents or their survivors; she was a legal secretaryto the attorney who filed this lawsuit. Several days afterher appointment, <strong>Reyno</strong> commenced separate wrongful-
OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion <strong>of</strong> the Court 454 U. S.death actions against Piper and Hartzell in the SuperiorCourt <strong>of</strong> California, claiming negligence and strict liability.'Air Navigation, McDonald, and the estate <strong>of</strong> the pilot are notparties to this litigation. <strong>The</strong> survivors <strong>of</strong> the five passengerswhose estates are represented by <strong>Reyno</strong> filed a separateaction in the United Kingdom against Air Navigation, Mc-Donald, and the pilot's estate.' <strong>Reyno</strong> candidly admits thatthe action against Piper and Hartzell was filed in the UnitedStates because its laws regarding liability, capacity to sue,and damages are more favorable to her position than arethose <strong>of</strong> Scotland. Scottish law does not recognize strict liabilityin tort. Moreover, it permits wrongful-death actionsonly when brought by a decedent's relatives. <strong>The</strong> relativesmay sue only for "loss <strong>of</strong> support and society." 3On petitioners' motion, the suit was removed to the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District <strong>of</strong> California.Piper then moved for transfer to the United States DistrictCourt for the Middle District <strong>of</strong> Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28U. S. C. § 1404(a). 4 Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack <strong>of</strong>personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer. InDecember 1977, the District Court quashed service on'Avco-Lycoming, Inc., the manufacturer <strong>of</strong> the plane's engines, was alsonamed as a defendant. It was subsequently dismissed from the suit bystipulation.<strong>The</strong> pilot's estate has also filed suit in the United Kingdom against AirNavigation, McDonald, Piper, and Hartzell.'See Affidavit <strong>of</strong> Donald Ian Kerr MacLeod, App. A19 (affidavit submittedto District Court by petitioners describing Scottish law). Suits fordamages are governed by <strong>The</strong> Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.Section 1404(a) provides: "For the convenience <strong>of</strong> parties and witnesses,in the interest <strong>of</strong> justice, a district court may transfer any civil action toany other district or division where it might have been brought."'<strong>The</strong> District Court concluded that it could not assert personal jurisdictionover Hartzell consistent with due process. However, it decided not todismiss Hartzell because the corporation would be amenable to process inPennsylvania.
- Page 1 and 2: Citation: 454 U.S. 235 1981Content
- Page 3 and 4: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Syllabus 454 U. S
- Page 5: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 9 and 10: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 11 and 12: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 13 and 14: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 15 and 16: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 17 and 18: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 19 and 20: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 21 and 22: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 23 and 24: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 25 and 26: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 27 and 28: OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Co
- Page 29 and 30: OCTOBER TERM, 1981STEVENS, J., diss