A recent decision highlights the timing and jurisdictional pitfalls that may be faced by the attorney accepting an out-of-state injury case.

In Willard v. Ingersoll-Rand, __ FSupp2d __ 2003 WL 22175582 (ND, Ill., 2003), the plaintiff, a citizen of Zimbabwe, was injured there on June 19, 2000 by an air compressor manufactured in North Carolina in 1981 by Ingersoll-Rand, a New Jersey Corporation. It was sold to defendant’s affiliate in France, who, in turn, sold the machine to plaintiff’s employer in Zimbabwe. Suit was filed in Illinois state court and removed to the federal district court pursuant to the diversity statute. Defendant then moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and the statute of limitations.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]