## Facts

- A Boeing-manufactured aircraft, previously owned by United Airlines and operated by a Taiwanese carrier, crashed in Taiwan, killing a Japanese passenger.
- The decedent’s heirs (Japanese nationals) sued The Boeing Company and United Airlines in the Tokyo District Court, alleging product-related tort claims tied to defects and failures to warn or correct.
- Related suits by other victims’ families had been dismissed by a U.S. court on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Taiwan; Boeing and United had indicated willingness to submit to Taiwanese jurisdiction and waive certain defenses there.
- In the Tokyo action, Boeing and United moved to dismiss, arguing Japan was an inappropriate forum because the crash, evidence, and witnesses were centered in Taiwan and Taiwan was an available alternative forum.
- United maintained a business office in Japan, providing a domestic venue connection relevant to the jurisdictional analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether a Japanese court may exercise international jurisdiction over foreign defendants for a tort arising from an air crash abroad when domestic venue connections to Japan exist.
2. Whether the court should decline jurisdiction on a forum non conveniens–type theory where Taiwan is an available and arguably more convenient forum.
3. What standard governs discretionary refusal of jurisdiction in Japan—specifically, whether refusal is limited to “exceptional circumstances” where exercising jurisdiction would be plainly unfair.

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held it would exercise international jurisdiction and allow the case to proceed in Japan.
- The court recognized a limited discretion to refuse jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances but found that threshold unmet.
- The existence of an alternative forum in Taiwan, the foreign location of the accident, and convenience considerations did not justify refusal where Japanese venue connections supported jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- International jurisdiction is generally supported where domestic venue provisions are satisfied; discretionary refusal is not automatic even if another forum appears more convenient.
- A Japanese court may decline jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances—i.e., where exercising jurisdiction would clearly conflict with fairness in litigation when all circumstances are considered.
- The availability of an alternative foreign forum and concentration of evidence abroad are relevant factors but are not, by themselves, sufficient to require dismissal.
- Prior foreign forum non conveniens determinations may be considered but do not control a Japanese court’s independent jurisdictional assessment.

## Conclusion

The Tokyo District Court retained jurisdiction over foreign corporate defendants in transnational tort litigation connected to an overseas air crash, applying an “exceptional circumstances” standard under which refusal of jurisdiction is reserved for plainly unfair cases rather than routine convenience balancing.


Mukoda v. The Boeing Co., Hanrei Times (No. 604) 138 (Tokyo Dist. Ct. 1986)