McCarthy v. Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp.
994 F. Supp. 2d 1329
N.D. Ga.2014Background
- This is a diversity products-liability suit: Australian plaintiffs (Peter and Maureen McCarthy) were injured in Queensland, Australia while operating a Yamaha WaveRunner manufactured in Newnan, Georgia by Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. (YMMC).
- Parties agree Georgia choice-of-law rules govern; locus delicti is Australia, so foreign substantive law (Australia) ordinarily applies.
- YMMC moved to apply Australian substantive law (caps on damages, limits on punitive damages, English Rule for fees, and statutory affirmative defenses). A prior filing error named a different defendant; the Court granted leave to refile.
- The McCarthys invoke Georgia’s public-policy exception and the doctrine of renvoi to argue Georgia law should govern key issues instead of Australian law.
- The Court considered whether Australian substantive law or Georgia law applies to damages caps, punitive damages availability, fee-shifting (English Rule), and Australian statutory defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Australian statutory caps on damages contravene Georgia public policy | McCarthy: Australia’s caps (general damages and strict-liability caps; limits on lost income) conflict with Georgia policy and thus Georgia law should apply | YMMC: Georgia choice-of-law points to Australia; caps are substantive and applicable | Held: Public-policy exception not shown; Australian caps apply |
| Whether Australian limits on punitive damages conflict with Georgia policy | McCarthy: Georgia allows uncapped punitive awards; therefore Georgia law should apply | YMMC: Australian law limits availability of punitive damages absent specific intent; this is a substantive rule | Held: Limits are not sufficiently dissimilar; apply Australian law to evaluate punitive claim |
| Whether Australian fee-shifting (English Rule) applies | McCarthy: Georgia’s offer-of-settlement statute limits fee recovery; applying English Rule would violate Georgia policy | YMMC: Australian practice generally awards costs to prevailing party | Held: Georgia law governs fee requests (Georgia common-law/ statutory rule applies); YMMC may nevertheless argue for English Rule if it prevails |
| Whether Australian statutory affirmative defenses (assumption of risk, participation in dangerous recreation, contributory negligence) apply | McCarthy: These defenses (esp. contributory negligence as complete bar) contradict Georgia policy | YMMC: CLA and TPA defenses are substantive Australian law and applicable | Held: McCarthy failed to show public-policy conflict; Australian defenses apply (note: Australian contributory rule is more favorable to plaintiffs than Georgia’s comparative bar) |
| Whether the doctrine of renvoi requires applying Georgia law | McCarthy: Australian choice-of-law would look to law of place of manufacture (Georgia), so renvoi sends court back to Georgia law | YMMC: Court should apply Australian substantive law (no renvoi) | Held: Renvoi not shown by plaintiffs; court declines to apply renvoi |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Rural Elec. Ins. Exch. v. R.D. Moody & Assocs., Inc., 468 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (federal courts in diversity apply forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Acme Circus Operating Co. v. Kuperstock, 711 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1983) (same)
- Frank Briscoe Co. v. Ga. Sprinkler Co., 713 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1983) (Georgia applies foreign statutes and their construction but applies Georgia common law when no foreign statute exists)
- Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corp. v. Hines, 309 Ga. App. 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (refusal to apply foreign wrongful-death statute under Georgia public-policy exception)
- Alexander v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 Ga. 339 (Ga. 1996) (public-policy exception applied where foreign law would undermine Georgia protections)