Clement Sun

Professor S. Helf
MGMT 200 D
January 10, 2004
HELICOPTEROS NACIONALES DE COLOMBIA V. HALL
1. Parties:
Victims of a helicopter crash involving a Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia helicopter and the company Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia or Helicol.
2. Facts:
Helicol spent $4 million dollars in Fort Worth, Texas on helicopters and helicopter
accessories as well as in training pilots in Texas. Helicol also made a transportation contract
with the company of the victims and survivors of the crash, Consorcio/WSH, in Houston
Texas. However, Helicol is not authorized to do business in Texas and lacks offices and
permanent personnel there.
3. Procedure: The trial court found Helico liable for $1,141,200 but the Texas Court of Civil
Appeals reversed this judgment which was then reversed again by the Texas Supreme Court.
4. Issue:
The issue remaining to decide is whether Texas courts may assert in personam
jurisdiction over Helicol while remaining consistent with the Due Process Clause.
5. Decision: Reversed
6. Holding: Texas violated the due process clause by asserting in personam jurisdiction over
Helicol.
7. Reasoning:
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, demonstrates that Helicol did not have
certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to warrant inpersonam
jurisdiction over Helicol. The court found that Helicols business contacts in Texas were not
continuous and systematic, conditions which opposed those in Perkins v. Benguet
onsolidated Mining Co.