88 Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, Fall 2013 (49:1) contacts with Massachusetts insufficient.134 It found that the balloon operator did not target Massachusetts residents and did not knowingly accept the benefits of a transaction initiated in Massachusetts.135 The court also determined that its Massachusetts activity was not continuous or systematic enough to support general jurisdiction. The court noted that it reached this ruling “regretfully.”136 It opined that “[i]t seems unfair that the [balloon operator] can reap the benefits of obtaining American business and not be subject to suit in our country.”137 With regard to the Massachusetts travel agent, the court agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that the travel agent failed to investigate the safety record of the balloon operator.138 The court stated that although travel agents are generally not liable for the negligence of third-party travel operators, they are liable for their own negligence.139 The Massachusetts travel agent knew that the balloon operator “had previously had a serious wind related accident” and that it failed to take requisite safety precautions.140 The court concluded thus: “This [decision] demonstrates an obvious but lamentable truth—that where personal jurisdiction is limited, the parties most culpable may escape liability leaving the burden of recovery on defendants close to home—even when they are undoubtedly less culpable.”141 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 246. at at at at at at 247–48. 252. 249. 248–49. 249. 252. .