Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Garcia arose out of a fatal air-craft accident allegedly caused by a faulty crank- shaft. Cessna, a Kansas corporation, manufactured the accident aircraft, which was never bought or sold by a Texas resident. Nevertheless, the Texas Court of Appeals held that Texas courts had specific personal jurisdiction over Cessna Aircraft Company ("Cessna"). The court based its decision on a "stream of commerce" theory and Cessna's relationship with third parties, which contravenes recent Supreme Court precedent.
Ignoring Cessna's argument that under Supreme Court precedent, simply placing products into the "stream of commerce" does not provide a valid basis for personal jurisdiction, the court held that specific personal jurisdiction is present because (1) Cessna had minimum contacts with Texas; and (2) Cessna's potential liability arose from or was substantially connected to those contacts. The court based its finding that Cessna had minimum contacts on the fact that Cessna placed its airplanes into the "stream of commerce" with an expectation that they would be purchased in Texas, and because Cessna advertised and maintained repair centers in Texas. The court then held that these contacts were related to the underlying lawsuit because the allegedly defective crankshaft—which was not manufactured by Cessna—was bought and sold in Texas and installed by McCreery, a Cessna contractor.
The court also found a relationship between those supposed contacts and the action, though a careful review of the court's analysis reveals that it actually was relying on a link between third parties and the suit (even though such reliance is precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Waldon v. Fiori and Bris-tol-Meyers Squibb v. Superior Court); specifically a link between the suit and McCreery, which per-formed maintenance on the aircraft, and third party manufacturers who manufactured and sold the crank shaft. Of relevance to the court, McCreery Aviation was obligated by its contract with Cessna to hold itself out as an authorized service facility for Cessna aircraft.
Cessna has filed a motion for rehearing challenging the court's reliance on facts that either are not sup-ported by the record or irrelevant to the personal jurisdiction analysis, including, inter alia, that Cessna put its airplanes into the "stream of commerce" with an expectation that they may be purchased in Texas. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Garcia, No. 13-17-159, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10471 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018).
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.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.