## Facts

- A helicopter operated by the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force crashed in Japan, killing crew members.
- The helicopter was manufactured in the United States by Vertol Aircraft Company and sold to the U.S. Air Force; it was later acquired by Japan.
- Vertol later dissolved, and Boeing acquired Vertol’s assets and assumed its liabilities as successor.
- The decedents’ families sued Boeing in Japan, alleging a manufacturing defect caused the crash.
- Boeing moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of manufacture that the helicopter would be used in Japan or cause harm there.

## Issues

1. Whether a Japanese court may exercise international jurisdiction over a U.S. manufacturer’s successor for tort/product-defect claims arising from a crash and deaths occurring in Japan when the product was manufactured and initially sold abroad.
2. Whether the asserted lack of foreseeability that the product would be used in Japan defeats jurisdiction.
3. Whether corporate succession (asset acquisition and assumption of liabilities) supports treating the successor as a proper defendant for jurisdictional purposes.

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court denied Boeing’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court accepted jurisdiction over Boeing as successor to the manufacturer in a tort action based on a crash and resulting injuries occurring in Japan.

## Legal Principles

- International jurisdiction may be found where the dispute has a sufficient connection to Japan, commonly assessed by analogy to domestic venue concepts such as the place where the tortious harm occurred.
- In tort/product-related cases, the location of the accident and damage in Japan can supply a jurisdictional basis over a foreign manufacturer (or successor), even if manufacture and initial sale occurred abroad.
- A defendant’s claim that Japan-related harm was not foreseeable at the time of manufacture does not, by itself, negate jurisdiction when the harmful result occurred in Japan.
- A successor that assumed a predecessor’s liabilities may be treated as standing in the predecessor’s position for purposes of suit and jurisdiction on claims tied to the predecessor’s product.

## Conclusion

The Tokyo District Court exercised jurisdiction over a U.S. successor manufacturer in a defect-based tort action arising from a fatal helicopter crash in Japan, treating the Japan-based occurrence of harm as a sufficient jurisdictional connection despite foreign manufacture, foreign initial sale, and objections based on foreseeability.


Ōkuma v. Boeing Co., Hanrei Jihō (No. 1113) 26 (Tokyo Dist. Ct. 1984)