Ewing v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
Decision Date | 13 February 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 4-61 Civ. 221.,4-61 Civ. 221. |
Citation | 202 F. Supp. 216 |
Parties | Vere R. EWING, Administrator of the Estate of Florence E. Ewing, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, General Motors Corporation, a corporation, and Northwest Airlines, Inc., a corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Charles T. Hvass, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Nathan A. Cobb and Charles A. Bassford, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
This cause comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion for an order denying the special appearance of defendant Lockheed Aircraft Corporation herein and for an order determining that this defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Lockheed countered with a motion for dismissal as to it upon the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over its person. Jurisdiction purportedly was obtained over this defendant by service on the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota pursuant to M.S.A. § 303.13, subd. 1(3), and by personal service on Lockheed's field representative residing within this State.
This cause of action arises out of the Northwest Airline "Electra" crash near Tell City, Indiana, on March 17, 1960. The decedent was a citizen of South Dakota. Defendant Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is a California corporation. Defendant General Motors Corporation is a Delaware corporation and defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc., is a Minnesota corporation. The aircraft involved in the crash was manufactured and assembled by Lockheed, with the engines having been built by General Motors, and it had been sold to and was being operated by Northwest at the time of the crash.
The complaint is brought under the Indiana Wrongful Death Act, Ind. Burns' Ann.Stat. § 2-404, and asserts three causes of action. The first and second causes of action are directed against Lockheed on a breach of warranty theory of liability. The plaintiff alleges that at the time of the sale to Northwest, Lockheed expressly and impliedly warranted and guaranteed to Northwest and through Northwest to its fare-paying passengers, inter alia, that the aircraft was suitable and fit for use as a commercial airplane, and that the aircraft, by reason of the breach of such warranties, crashed. The third cause of action is directed against all of the defendants and alleges negligence in the design, manufacture, assembly and maintenance of the aircraft.
Lockheed has appeared specially and moves the Court to dismiss the action against it upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person. Specifically, the grounds for the motion can be stated as follows: (1) that Section 303.13, subd. 1(3) does not apply to the factual situation present here; (2) that Lockheed does not "do business" in Minnesota so as to subject it to personal jurisdiction; and (3) that if Section 303.13, subd. 1(3) is applied so as to uphold jurisdiction over it, the statute would be a denial of due process and would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
The pertinent portion of M.S.A. § 303.13 is as follows:
Under the contract of sale for the Electras between Lockheed and Northwest, Lockheed agreed to provide and did provide a "field service representative" to be stationed at the Northwest offices in Minneapolis to aid Northwest in the problems arising from the operation, repair and maintenance of the aircraft. Plaintiff contends that since part of the contract was performed in Minnesota, Section 303.13, subd. 1(3) is operative and Lockheed's activities within the State are sufficient to satisfy the "doing business" requirement of "due process".
Lockheed's contacts within the State, so far as the record indicates, were those which arose in connection with the sale, maintenance and repair of the Electras. One of the attorneys for the plaintiff has filed an affidavit herein wherein he states:
Counsel states that this information was obtained from Mr. A. E. Floan, Vice-President and Secretary of Northwest, and the precise wording was verified by Mr. Floan. The factual situation as set forth in this affidavit is not controverted. However, it is to be gathered from the showing herein that the sale of the Electras constituted a California contract.
Counsel for Lockheed has filed an affidavit with the Court wherein he states:
This showing is not contradicted.
The deposition of Mr. Thomas P. Sapa, the field service representative for Lockheed stationed in Minneapolis, reveals the following facts: He is stationed in Minneapolis pursuant to the sales contract for the Electras to Northwest, involving, among others, the airplane in question, and although he regards his being here as temporary, at the time of the service of process herein he had been here two years and four months. His family consisting of his wife and children came...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Callahan v. Keystone Fireworks Mfg. Co.
...amounts received by Keystone from the sale of its products in the state of Washington were not insignificant. Ewing v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 202 F.Supp. 216 (D.C.Minn.1962). (4) Keystone solicited sales in the state of Washington through the distribution of catalogs and through the activ......
-
McNeely v. CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING CO.
...In view of the result reached below, it is unnecessary at this time to decide whether this case falls within the exceptions carved out by Ewing and Williams cited in the footnote or whether the statute constitutionally can be restricted only to residents of As to plaintiffs Ulrich's service......
-
Williams v. Connolly
...of the contract. His position is heavily dependent on Judge Nordbye's interpretation of the One Act statute in Ewing v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 202 F.Supp. 216 (D.Minn.1962). A Northwest Airlines plane manufactured and assembled by Lockheed and using General Motors engines had crashed and ......
-
Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp.
...Conlon v. Republic Aviation Corp., D.C., 204 F.Supp. 865; Middleton v. United Aircraft Corp., D.C. 204 F.Supp. 856; Ewing v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., D.C., 202 F.Supp. 216; Hinton v. Republic Aviation Corp., D.C., 180 F.Supp. There are many additional cases recently decided that support the......