In 2014, Air Asia Flight No. 8501 crashed in the Java Sea while flying from Indonesia to Singapore. The crash resulted in the deaths of all passengers and crew on board. The plane involved in the accident was manufactured by French company Airbus. The heirs of some of the deceased passengers brought product liability and negligence claims against numerous companies involved in the crash, including Airbus.

Airbus was incorporated and had its principal place of business in France and had not maintained any offices or employed any employees in the United States for at least the previous five years. All of Airbus’s aircraft manufacturing occurred in Europe. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs brought their suit in a US district court; the plaintiffs argued that 6.73 percent of Airbus’s global sales were in the United States and that 42 percent of its procurement was in the United States. The plaintiffs also pointed out that Airbus had several “separately incorporated”

subsidiaries in the United States that employed thousands of American workers. Courts have to apply a three-prong test to decide whether someone has had sufficient minimum contact with their forum: (1) Did Airbus purposefully direct his activities and transactions with the forum or resident thereof or engage in an act whereby he was purposefully benefited by engaging in the activities in the forum, subsequently receiving the benefits and protections of its laws? (2) Did the lawsuit claim relate to Airbus’s forum-related activities? (3) If the court exercised jurisdiction, would doing so be reasonable? Do you think the court exercised personal jurisdiction over Airbus? Why or why not?