Bryant v. Finnish National Airline

15 N.Y.2d 426, 260 N.Y.S.2d 625, 208 N.E.2d 439 (1965)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bryant v. Finnish National Airline

New York Court of Appeals
15 N.Y.2d 426, 260 N.Y.S.2d 625, 208 N.E.2d 439 (1965)

Facts

Eleanor Bryant (plaintiff), an employee of Trans World Airlines, was injured by a baggage cart at an airport in Paris. Bryant claimed that an airplane owned by Finnish National Airline (Finnair) (defendant) had blasted excessive air, which caused the baggage cart to strike her. Bryant was a New York resident and sued Finnair in New York state court for her injuries. Finnair was organized in Finland under Finnish law. Finnair’s headquarters were in Finland. Finnair was not registered in the United States, did not have any shareholders, directors, or officers in the United States, did not fly into or from the United States, and was not qualified to do business in New York. However, Finnair maintained offices outside Finland, including a small office in New York. Four full-time and three part-time employees worked in Finnair’s New York office, primarily transmitting reservation requests for European travel to the airline’s Finland-based employees. The New York employees provided some additional limited services for Finnair, such as information, public-relations, and publicity services. However, the New York employees did not complete reservations or sell tickets. Further, the New York office did not have any authority to bind Finnair, and any contracts relating to the New York office had to be approved by Finnair’s headquarters in Finland. The New York office maintained a bank account that it used to pay operating expenses in New York. The account’s average balance was less than $2,000. Finnair moved to dismiss Bryant’s complaint, arguing that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The trial court found that Finnair was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York and denied the motion. The appellate division reversed, finding that Finnair was not doing business in New York. The appellate division then held that the New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Finnair and ordered the dismissal of Bryant’s lawsuit. Bryant appealed to New York’s highest court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Desmond, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership