AS MOST STATES DO NOT HAVE STATUTES PROHIBITING HIJACKING, THE CRIME IS USUALLY PROSECUTED UNDER STATE STATUTES RELATING TO KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, AND LARCENY. BECAUSE OF VENUE AND JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN SECURING A PROMPT, EFFICIENT PROSECUTION UNDER STATE LAWS FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ABOARD AN AIRLINER IN FLIGHT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROSECUTING CAPTURED HIJACKERS UNDER EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS. ILLUSTRATIVE LEGAL CASES ARE CITED. LIABILITY OF THE INSURANCE CARRIER FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM A HIJACKED AIRCRAFT IS EXAMINED. POLICIES WRITTEN FOR AIRLINES ARE NOT UNIFORM AND THE PROVISIONS ARE GENERALLY NEGOTIATED BY THE INSURER AND THE INSURED. MOST POLICIES PROTECT THE INSURED ONLY FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE AIRLINE'S NEGLIGENCE IN AND ABOUT THE FLIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER FOR INJURIES DURING A FLIGHT WITH A HIJACKER IN CONTROL IS UNCLEAR; AIRLINES HAVE NO LIABILITY IF, PRIOR TO THE VIOLENT ACT, THE AIRLINE HAD NO NOTICE THAT SUCH AN ACT WOULD BE ATTEMPTED. MOREOVER, INSURANCE COVERAGE TO THE OWNER OF AN AIRCRAFT IS USUALLY SUSPENDED WHILE CONDITIONS, SUCH AS HIJACKING EXIST. ALTHOUGH FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS HAVE PLUGGED SOME GAPS IN CRIMINAL LAW REGARDING HIJACKING, THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO CIVIL WRONGS COMMITTED ON AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT REMAINS UNALTERED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW COULD BE APPLIED SUCCESSFULLY TO TORTS COMMITTED ON AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT, THUS PARTIALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION IN HIJACKING CASES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJW)