Court Opinion

ID: 9477425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:23:18.918522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:52.470053
License: Public Domain

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur, although I have doubts that today’s court has correctly decided this case. I write separately to stress two points that necessarily limit the future impact of our decision.
First, it is important that the product in this case was perceived by the court as one that poses unusually great safety risks to persons. Because a parachute opening device must work correctly or someone likely will be killed or injured, repairers of such items probably can expect to be haled into courts in distant states if the repairers send the items there.
Second, a concession narrowed the dispute before us. At oral argument, SSE’s counsel (correctly or incorrectly) stated that if Morris sufficiently alleged that the repair was a relevant part of the cause of action, SSE loses its jurisdictional argument under the O’Connor Asahi analysis.