1. What facts could you change that may sway the court’s judgment in analyzing personal jurisdiction over Pilatus in this case?
2. Does this decision mean that Weingeroff is without any legal recourse against Pilatus unless the case is brought in Swiss courts?
3. Suppose the plane has crashed and injured a pedestrian on the ground. Given the court’s reasoning, would the victim be able to bring a case against Pilatus in a Pennsylvania (state or federal) court?

Weingeroff was a passenger on a plane manufactured by a Pilatus, a Swiss company, and was killed when the plane crashed when approaching a small airport in PA. Weingeroff’s estate brought a diversity action in a federal district court situated in the Eastern District of PA alleging negligence and product liability against Pilatus. Pilatus claimed they had no offices, no agents, no commercial transactions with PA residents, and no physical presence in the state that constitutes purpose availment, and thus sought to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Weingeroff off pointed to evidence that (1) Pilatus had a nationwide marketing campaign in the U.S. to sell its planes; and (2) Pilatus has purchased over $1 million in products, services, and equipment from PA suppliers.