Title: Jonz v. Garrett/Airesearch Corp.

State: alaska

Issuer: Alaska Supreme Court

Document:

Jonz v. Garrett/Airesearch Corp.  490 P.2d 1197 (1971) Don JONZ, Appellant, v. GARRETT/AIRESEARCH CORP. et al., Appellees. No. 1441. Supreme Court of Alaska. November 30, 1971. H. Bixler Whiting, Fairbanks, for appellant. Stephen S. DeLisio, Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, Fairbanks, for appellees. Before BONEY, C.J., and CONNOR and ERWIN, JJ. OPINION BONEY, Chief Justice. On October 31, 1969, a Hamilton Turboliner aircraft leased by Don Jonz from Greyhound Leasing and Financial Corporation crashed on Alaska's North Slope. In May of 1970, Jonz filed suit against Greyhound Leasing, Hamilton Aircraft Corporation, and Garrett/Airesearch Corporation. The cause of action was based upon negligent manufacture and design of the aircraft and its engines and upon breach of warranty.[1] *1198 Hamilton Aircraft Corporation is an Arizona corporation and is not authorized to do business in Alaska. Service was accomplished upon Hamilton Aircraft and the other out of state defendants by serving copies of the summons and complaint upon the clerk for the Commissioner of Commerce of the State of Alaska.[2] Hamilton Aircraft entered a "special appearance"[3] solely to challenge jurisdiction and filed a motion to set aside the service.[4] The superior court granted the motion to set aside the service and ordered a dismissal of the suit against Hamilton Aircraft. Don Jonz has appealed from that ruling. We believe the superior court erred in setting aside the service of process on Hamilton Aircraft Corporation. The exercise of personal jurisdiction over Hamilton Aircraft is proper under Alaska's long arm statute and is consistent with due process. AS 09.05.015(a) (4) (A) and (B) provide: (a) A court of this state having jurisdiction over the subject matter has jurisdiction over a person served in an action according to the rules of civil procedure * * * * * * (4) in an action claiming injury to person or property in this state arising out of an act or omission out of this state by the defendant, provided, in addition, that at the time of the injury either (A) solicitation or service activities were carried on in this state by or on behalf of the defendant; or (B) products, materials or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed in this state in the ordinary course of trade; * * * The injury out of which this lawsuit arose occurred in Alaska; the allegedly negligent or defective manufacture by Hamilton Aircraft occurred in Arizona. Gordon B. Hamilton, president of Hamilton Aircraft Corporation, testified in his deposition that Hamilton Aircraft advertised its products in several aviation publications having national or worldwide circulation. Some, if not all, of these publications were distributed in Alaska.[5] Hamilton Aircraft also had arrangements with several individuals and companies who were to receive commissions on sales of Hamilton airplanes for which they found buyers. John Kupka and Charlotte Aircraft Corporation were known by Hamilton Aircraft to have solicited buyers in Alaska for Hamilton airplanes, although no sales were ever consummated as a result of these activities.[6] *1199 The Hamilton Turboliner that Don Jonz leased had first been sold by Hamilton Aircraft to Priority Air Transport in March of 1969.[7] Priority Air Transport had operated this airplane on the North Slope. Another Hamilton Turboliner was owned by Ortner Air Service, and was leased to a company that operated the airplane in Alaska. Hamilton Aircraft knew that both of these airplanes were being operated in Alaska.[8] The solicitation activities carried on by or on behalf of Hamilton Aircraft in Alaska and the known use in Alaska of two of the Hamilton manufactured Turboliners in the ordinary course of trade provided a sufficient basis for obtaining personal jurisdiction under the terms of Alaska's long arm statute. We note that Alaska's long arm statute is a broad one which we regard as an attempt by the legislature to establish jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by due process.[9] Having concluded that the present case was encompassed by the terms of our statute, we turn to a consideration of whether the application of the statute would offend due process. The United States Supreme Court has instructed us that due process is satisfied when a nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"[10] In determining whether a nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with Alaska such that due process would not be offended by the exercise of personal jurisdiction, we emphasize the quality rather than the quantity of the contacts.[11] The occurrence of an injury in Alaska allegedly caused by an act or omission by a defendant outside of Alaska is itself a contact with Alaska. While such a contact is not sufficient, taken alone, to establish minimum contacts with Alaska,[12] very little by way of additional contacts need be shown to satisfy due process.[13] Hamilton Aircraft Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of airplanes and does not seriously maintain that all of its airplanes were intended to remain in Arizona. Hamilton Aircraft should have known that one or more of its airplanes might be flown in Alaska,[14] and in fact *1200 actually knew that Priority Air Transport was using its Turboliner in Alaska. It knew as well in May of 1969 that Don Jonz would be taking possession of this Turboliner and would continue to operate it in Alaska.[15] We believe that this knowledge, when coupled with the additional contact of the occurrence of the injury in this state, is sufficient to establish minimum contacts with Alaska.[16] The order of the superior court is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. DIMOND and RABINOWITZ, JJ., not participating.