The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
Plaintiff Strauss, a passenger, was injured on May 12, 1960 when an airplane manufactured by defendant Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and operated by defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. encountered trubulence over Miami, Florida. Strauss was injured when he was thrown from his seat notwithstanding that his seat belt was fastened. The complaint alleges, as the basis for recovery against Douglas, negligence in the manufacture and assembly of the seat belt and its component parts. Delta was also named as a defendant in Strauss' suit on the ground that it negligently failed to provide plaintiff with a safe aircraft. Delta filed a cross claim against Douglas asserting liability over and seeking indemnity or contribution.
This is a diversity action. Strauss is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant Douglas is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Douglas has moved to quash service and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that this Court does not have jurisdiction over it. The question before me is whether Douglas is doing business in Pennsylvania so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Plaintiff initially attempted to effect service on Douglas pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law, 15 P.S. § 2852-1011, subd. B and 1011, subd. C:
'B. Any foreign business corporation which shall have done any business in this Commonwealth, without procuring a certificate of authority to do so from the Department of State, shall be conclusively presumed to have designated the Secretary of the Commonwealth as its true and lawful attorney authorized to accept, on its behalf, service of process in any action arising out of acts or omissions of such corporation within this Commonwealth. * * *
'C. For the purposes of this section, the entry of any corporation into this Commonwealth for the doing of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act in this Commonwealth for such purpose, with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts, shall constitute 'doing business'.'
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2180 provides:
'Rule 2180. Service of Process
'(a) Service of process within the county in which the action is instituted shall be made upon a corporation or similar entity by the sheriff of that county by handing a (true and attested) copy thereof, attested by the prothonotary or sheriff or certified by the plaintiff to be a true copy,
'(1) to an executive officer, partner or trustee of the corporation or similar entity; or
'(2) to an agent or person for the time being in charge of, and only at, any office or usual place of business of the corporation or similar entity; or
'(3) to an agent, authorized by appointment to receive service of process; or by delivering an attested or certified copy thereof in the manner provided by law to a statutory agent authorized to receive service of process.
'(c) If service cannot be made under any of the methods set forth in Subdivisions (a) or (b) of this rule, the court upon petition shall authorize service by registered mail directed to the Secretary of the Commonwealth and to the corporation or similar entity at its last registered address or principal place of business, or by publication as the court may direct.'
Douglas asserts that it is a foreign corporation not doing business in Pennsylvania land that service on it under the provisions of Rule 2180(c) is ineffective. Plaintiff contends that the service was effective ...