## Facts

- An Air India Boeing 747 crashed into the sea shortly after takeoff from Santa Cruz Airport in Bombay, India, on January 1, 1978, killing all aboard; nearly all were Indian nationals.
- After settling claims against Air India, personal representatives of decedents filed wrongful-death suits in multiple U.S. federal courts against U.S. companies involved in manufacturing or supplying aircraft components.
- Plaintiffs alleged a malfunction in aircraft components caused the crash and argued key liability proof (documents and witnesses) was within defendants’ control in the United States.
- Defendants contended the crash resulted from faulty operational control by the pilot and crew, and that defense evidence (witnesses, investigative materials, and access to physical evidence) was primarily in India and controlled by Indian authorities.
- The actions were consolidated and transferred as MDL proceedings to the Western District of Washington.
- For purposes of dismissal, defendants agreed to submit to Indian jurisdiction, make employees available to testify in India, and waive applicable Indian statute-of-limitations defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the actions should be dismissed under forum non conveniens in favor of litigation in India, given the foreign location of the crash and the parties’ connections to India.
2. Whether and how choice-of-law questions, including potential applicability of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), should be resolved in connection with the forum non conveniens motion.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The court determined India was an adequate alternative forum, particularly in light of defendants’ stipulations to accept Indian jurisdiction, produce employee witnesses, and waive limitations defenses.
- The court concluded private-interest factors favored India because substantial fact and operational evidence, many witnesses, and practical access to investigative materials were located in India.
- The court concluded public-interest factors favored India due to India’s strong local interest in the disaster and the administrative and choice-of-law burdens of trying the dispute in a U.S. forum with a limited connection to the event.
- The court declined to issue a definitive ruling on choice of law and DOHSA, treating those matters as secondary and better left to the forum where the case would proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens dismissal requires an available and adequate alternative forum and a balance of private and public interest factors favoring the alternative forum.
- In transnational tort litigation, the presence of U.S. corporate defendants and some U.S.-based evidence may be outweighed when the accident occurred abroad, most victims and key witnesses are foreign, and the foreign sovereign’s interest in the dispute is strong.
- A court may condition forum non conveniens dismissal on defendants’ stipulations (e.g., submission to foreign jurisdiction, witness availability, and waiver of limitations defenses) to ensure plaintiffs can realistically pursue claims in the alternative forum.
- Potential choice-of-law complexity, including statutory remedies implicated by an accident over the sea, may be considered as a public-interest factor and may be deferred when the case is dismissed in favor of a foreign forum.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the consolidated wrongful-death actions against U.S. aircraft-component manufacturers on forum non conveniens grounds, holding that India was an adequate and more appropriate forum given the location of the crash, concentration of key witnesses and evidence, and India’s strong interest, with dismissal conditioned on defendants’ jurisdictional and procedural stipulations.


In re Air Crash Disaster Near Bombay, India, on January 1, 1978, 531 F. Supp. 1175 (W.D. Wash. 1982)