Cartwright v. Fokker Aircraft U.S.A., Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
713 F. Supp. 389 (1988)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Michael Cartwright (plaintiff), an airline baggage handler, was injured while exiting the baggage compartment of an airplane. The airplane was manufactured and initially sold in the Netherlands by Fokker Aircraft BV (defendant), a Dutch company, to its American subsidiary, Fokker Aircraft USA (defendant). Cartwright sued both Fokker Aircraft BV and Fokker Aircraft USA in a Georgia federal court, claiming that the cargo compartment of the airplane was negligently designed and defective. Fokker Aircraft BV sold all of its airplanes in the Netherlands. It was not licensed to do business in Georgia. It did not transact or solicit any business in Georgia directly, but it did advertise in national magazines that presumably had readers in Georgia. It did not own or use any real property in Georgia, and it did not have an office or any employees in Georgia. Fokker Aircraft USA was licensed to do business in Georgia, and it provided Fokker Aircraft BV with marketing and sales services in the United States. Fokker Aircraft USA also operated a warehouse in Georgia where it stored an inventory of spare parts owned by Fokker Aircraft BV. Fokker Aircraft BV moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ward, J.)
What to do next…
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.
