Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitappealcorporationsustainedappellantappellee

lawsuitcorporationappellantappellee

Related Cases

Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379, 1984 A.M.C. 728

Facts

The appellants, survivors of Brazilian seaman Prisco Da Silva Borralho, filed a wrongful death action after Borralho died from injuries sustained on the KEY WEST drilling rig, which was stationed off the coast of Brazil. The rig was owned by Key International Drilling Company, a Bermudian corporation, and operated under a contract with a Brazilian entity, Key Perfuracoes Maritimas, Ltda. Borralho's employment contract specified that disputes would be resolved in Brazil, and he was a resident and citizen of Brazil at the time of his death.

The KEY WEST was built in the United States in 1974. Ever since its construction, the KEY WEST has been stationed off the coast of Brazil, first at Belem and then, sometime after the incident in suit, at Fortaleza, drilling for petroleum products for the Brazilian national oil company, Petrobas, under a charter agreement between Petrobas and the owner of the KEY WEST, appellee Key International Drilling Company, Ltd. (“KIDC”).

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the contacts with the United States were substantial enough to warrant the application of American law to the wrongful death lawsuit.

The primary question is whether the fact that American-based corporations owned the business entities which employed the decedent and owned the drilling rig upon which he was injured constitutes a substantial contact with the United States warranting the application of American law to appellants' lawsuit.

Rule

The court applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss a case when another forum is more appropriate for the case, and determined that the choice of law factors favored Brazilian law over American law.

Before a district court dismisses a case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, it should first ascertain whether American or foreign law governs the lawsuit.

Analysis

The court analyzed the choice of law factors and found that the overwhelming preponderance of the factors favored the application of Brazilian law. The court noted that the wrongful act occurred off the coast of Brazil, the decedent and appellants were Brazilian citizens, and the employment contract was made in Brazil. The court concluded that the contacts with the United States were insubstantial compared to those with Brazil.

The court then considered the forum non conveniens factors of Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506–507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's unconditional dismissal and remanded the case for dismissal under appropriate conditions, emphasizing the need to protect the appellants' interests.

However, because the order of dismissal was made unconditionally, we reverse and remand the case so that the district court may adequately protect the appellants' interests by fashioning an order of dismissal based upon appropriate conditions.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the appellees, as the court upheld the district court's dismissal of the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, finding that American law did not apply.

The district court dismissed appellants' action against appellees on the ground of forum non conveniens.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805

Aleem v. Aleem, 404 Md. 404, 947 A.2d 489

Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, 128 A.L.R. 394

Miree v. DeKalb County, Ga., 433 U.S. 25, 97 S.Ct. 2490, 53 L.Ed.2d 557

Schwartz v. Schwartz, 95 Nev. 202, 591 P.2d 1137