The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently determined that it had personal jurisdiction over an airline for injury arising on a flight originating in the forum state. A Nevada resident, Chunyun Wang ("Wang"), purchased round-trip transportation on Korean Airlines Co. ("Korean Air") from Las Vegas to Seoul. At the time, Korean Air was registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business in Nevada, and operated five flights per week out of Las Vegas. On the outbound flight, a flight attendant spilled hot water onto Wang's lap, allegedly causing second- and third-degree burns. Wang sued Korean Air, alleging claims under the Montreal Convention and state-law causes of action. Korean Air moved to dismiss, arguing that the Montreal Convention precluded Wang's state-law causes of action, and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
While the Court quickly ruled in favor of Korean Air regarding the Montreal Convention, and lack of general jurisdiction, it found a basis for specific jurisdiction. Under the applicable Ninth Circuit standard, a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if it purposefully directs activities at, or purposefully avails itself of the forum, and the claims in question arise out of such forum-related activities, unless the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The Court had no difficulty determining that Korean Air had purposefully availed itself of Nevada based on its registration to do business, contract with the Las Vegas airport, and operation of five flights per week to/from Las Vegas.
The more significant question was whether the injury alleged arose out of or was related to Korean Air's forum-based contacts. The Court acknowledged that this was "a much closer call," but ultimately held that the requisite causal nexus existed. Wang had to show that "but for Korean Air's specific business contacts with Nevada, [Wang] would not have received third-degree burns." This "but for" standard used in the Ninth Circuit is less stringent than the "purposeful direction" test used elsewhere. E.g. O'Connor v Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court noted that Wang was a Nevada resident, purchased the tickets in Nevada, and was injured on the Korean Air flight originating in Nevada. These facts distinguished the instant case from cases involving non-resident plaintiffs, injuries occurring during layovers in other jurisdictions, etc. As such, the Court found sufficient causal nexus to support specific jurisdiction over Korean Air.
The decision in this case is not unprecedented, and it is important to remember that the Ninth Circuit's "but for" standard is relatively lenient, and the outcome might have been different in a forum applying the stricter "purposeful direction" test. Chunyun Wang v Korean Airlines Co., No. 2:20-cv-00409-JAD-VCF, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3735, (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2021).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
