Jones v. Raytheon Aircraft Services, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals
120 S.W.3d 40 (2003)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
On March 29, 1995, a plane crashed in New Zealand, killing several people aboard. Both engines failed due to lack of fuel, despite there being enough fuel in the outboard fuel tanks. This might have happened because the fuel selectors were set to the wrong fuel tanks before takeoff. The plane was owned by a New Zealand company, but it had been manufactured and modified by United States-based Beech Aircraft Corporation and Raytheon Aircraft Services (collectively, the airplane makers) (defendants). The representatives of the decedents (collectively, Jones) (plaintiffs) sued the airplane makers in Texas state court. None of Jones were residents of the United States, nor did the witnesses relevant to the case have any relationship with the state of Texas. Prior to the crash, New Zealand implemented a no-fault accident-insurance system, which expanded its workers’-compensation system to include accidental injuries and deaths. This system, funded by employers as insurance, handled all claims without the involvement of the wrongdoer, and the beneficiary would receive a set amount of compensation each week. As part of this law, the victims—including Jones—could no longer bring lawsuits in the New Zealand courts if the injuries were covered by this insurance. The airplane makers moved to dismiss the case from the Texas court on the ground of forum non conveniens. The trial court granted the airplane makers’ motion, and Jones appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Angelini, J.)
Dissent (Marion, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.