Supreme Court
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik
- Case number: 23-0756
- Legal category: Jurisdiction
- Subtype: Personal Jurisdiction
- Set for oral argument: December 4, 2024
Case Summary
The issue in this case is whether the trial court had specific jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer for claims based on an allegedly defective product.
Sheema Shaik suffered serious injuries when a plane she was flying crashed at an airport in Texas. She and her husband sued BRP-Rotax, the plane’s engine manufacturer, asserting claims for strict products liability, negligence, and gross negligence. Rotax is based in Austria and sells its engines to international distributors who then sell the engines worldwide. The engine in this case was sold by Rotax under a distribution agreement to a distributor in the Bahamas whose designated territory included the United States.
The trial court denied Rotax’s special appearance contesting personal jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. Applying the stream-of-commerce-plus test, the court held that Rotax purposefully availed itself of the Texas market and that Shaik’s claims arose from or related to those contacts with Texas.
Rotax petitioned this Court for review. It argues that all relevant contacts with Texas were initiated by Rotax’s distributor, which Rotax had no control over or ownership interest in. In response, Shaik argues that Rotax’s distribution agreement indicated an intent to serve the U.S. market, including Texas, and that Rotax maintained a website that allowed Texas customers to register their engines and identified a Texas-based repair center. The Court granted the petition for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.