Harris v. KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.
2011 WL 2462486
W.D. Pa.2011Background
- Harris and Maseth sue Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. in the Western District of Pennsylvania for negligent maintenance injuries and death of Staff Sergeant Maseth on a US military base in Iraq, with Pennsylvania wrongful-death and survival claims driving the action.
- Maseth died after an electrocution incident in LSF-B1, Iraq, caused by a defective water pump on the roof; Maseth’s estate is administered in Tennessee, plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents, and KBR is Texas-based with a Delaware incorporation.
- KBR moves to apply Iraqi law to the claims, relying on Iraqi Civil Code provisions and Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17; plaintiffs contend Order 17 governs, or, alternatively, Pennsylvania law should apply under choice-of-law rules.
- LOGCAP III contract and Task Orders underlie KBR’s duty to perform electrical maintenance; plaintiffs allege negligent maintenance and failure to warn, seeking wrongful-death and survival damages in Pennsylvania, with some claims tied to Maseth’s estate in Tennessee.
- Procedural posture includes prior rulings denying dismissal defenses and a later ruling denying Iraqi-law application; the court reserved ruling on which state law should apply going forward.
- The court’s final ruling denies Iraqi-law application, leaving Pennsylvania choice-of-law analysis to determine applicable tort law and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 44.1 burden and foreign law | Harris/Maseth contend Iraqi law should be considered under Rule 44.1 because Iraqi Civil Code provisions are potentially applicable. | KBR argues Iraqi law should apply based on Iraqi Civil Code and CPA Order 17, supported by expert analysis. | Iraqi law not applied; Rule 44.1 burden not met; forum law governs. |
| Order 17 vs. Pennsylvania choice of law | Plaintiffs rely on Order 17 to govern third-party claims and immunities, potentially offsetting PA law. | KBR argues Order 17 immunities and contract-based rules require Iraqi law or sending-state law to govern. | Order 17 does not supplants PA choice-of-law rules; Iraqi-law application denied. |
| Causation conflicts under multi-jurisdictional law | Plaintiffs contend Pennsylvania/Tennessee pro-plaintiff causation standards should apply; Iraqi causation law is pro-defendant and would undermine plaintiffs’ recovery. | KBR argues Iraqi causation law should apply to limit liability when the first actor’s negligence suffices to cause harm. | Conflict is false; Iraqi causation not applied; Pennsylvania/Tennessee/Texas principles govern. |
| Damages: pain-and-suffering and punitive damages | Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas law allow recovery for decedent pain-and-suffering and punitive damages; Iraqi law does not. | KBR argues Iraqi law governs, including absence of moral harm and punitive damages; see Order 17 implications. | Iraqi moral-harm and punitive-damages rules not applied; forum states’ damages law governs; punitive-damages reserved for later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Chappell, 407 F.3d 166 (3d Cir.2005) (false conflict when conflicts reveal no impairment of interested jurisdictions; apply law of interested state)
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1964) (abandoned lex loci delicti; governs choice-of-law analysis in Pennsylvania)