IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION ARISING OUT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION IN WHICH A CREW MEMBER WAS INJURED, THE NONRESIDENT OWNER AND MANAGERS OF A VESSEL WERE NOT SUBJECT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE VESSEL'S CALLS TO PORTS IN TEXAS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO
PARAMJIT FARWAH, Appellants v. PROSPEROUS MARITIME CORP. AND OCS SERVICES (INDIA) LTD.- DIVISION: NORTRANS MARITIME SERVICES, Appellees
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 2743
April 5, 2007, Opinion Delivered
PROCEDURAL POSTURE:Appellants, relatives of a crew member who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicle collision that occurred while crew members were returning to a vessel, filed interlocutory appeals from orders in which the 136th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, granted the special appearances of appellees, a vessel owner, a vessel manager, an assisting manager, and a crewing manager, and dismissed appellees from the negligence action.
OVERVIEW: While docked at a Texas port, crew members hired a driver to take them into a town to purchase personal items and supplies. Upon returning to the vessel, the vehicle in which the crew members were traveling was hit by another vehicle. Appellants alleged that appellees, foreign companies that had their principal places of business outside the United States, breached their duty to provide the deceased crew member a safe workplace and safe transportation. On appeal, the court held that appellees' special appearances were properly granted under Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a because appellants' claims did not arise from appellees' purposeful contacts with Texas and appellees did not have continuous and systematic contacts with Texas of such quality that they could be subject to personal jurisdiction. The court held that the vessel's calls to ports in Texas were insufficient to establish general jurisdiction because appellees did not have the right to control the vessel's ports of call. The assisting manager's purchase of supplies and use of repair services in Texas did not satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction because the contacts did not relate to the cause of action.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's orders.
