Tuna v. Airbus
415 Ill. Dec. 24
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 7, 2008, two sudden pitch-down events injured New Zealand flight attendants Fuzzy Tuna and Jenaya McKay aboard an Airbus; claims alleged design/product defects by Airbus and Northrop Grumman.
- Defendants moved to apply New Zealand law and for summary judgment, arguing the New Zealand Accident Compensation Act (NZACA) bars compensatory tort damages because claimants receive no-fault benefits under ACC.
- Plaintiffs submitted contrary New Zealand expert declarations and later obtained a February 11, 2015 letter from the ACC stating the NZACA does not prevent New Zealanders from bringing civil claims overseas.
- Circuit court initially granted summary judgment applying New Zealand law; plaintiffs filed an appeal, then voluntarily dismissed it, and later filed a section 2-1401 petition to vacate the summary judgment based on the ACC letter as newly discovered evidence.
- The circuit court found petitioners diligent but concluded the ACC letter (signed by an ACC legal clerk) was not competent to alter the choice-of-law analysis; it denied the 2-1401 petition. Plaintiffs appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NZACA precludes compensatory damages in this case (choice-of-law conflict) | NZACA §317(1) does not bar overseas suits for injuries outside NZ; thus no conflict and Illinois law governs damages | §317(1) bars compensatory damages and applies when NZ law is lex causae; NZ law should control, barring recovery | Court found plaintiffs failed to present competent new evidence to overcome defendants’ expert view; summary judgment stands (NZ law application not disturbed on 2-1401 review) |
| Whether the ACC letter is new, admissible evidence that would have prevented summary judgment | ACC letter confirms NZACA permits overseas civil claims; it creates a genuine issue of material fact | Letter is authored by an ACC legal clerk (not a qualified NZ lawyer), cumulative, and does not address choice-of-law; not probative | Letter was not competent to alter the court’s choice-of-law analysis; petitioners did not show a meritorious defense based on it |
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to vacate summary judgment on April 2, 2015 | Plaintiffs argued the court could vacate and later pursue 2-1401 relief | Defendants argued an appeal divested the circuit court of jurisdiction and dismissal of the appeal made the judgment final | Court (and appellate panel) held the April 2 order was void because a notice of appeal had divested jurisdiction; plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal left the summary judgment final because no appeal was prosecuted within 30 days |
| Standard of review for denial of 2-1401 petition without evidentiary hearing | Petition raised foreign-law facts so factual issues existed; denial requires review for genuine factual disputes | Defendants relied on written expert declarations and urged judgment on the pleadings | Appellate court reviewed de novo whether any genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the ACC letter’s effect and affirmed denial because no competent new evidence created such an issue |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Partee, 125 Ill. 2d 24 (recognizing parallel availability of appellate and post-judgment relief)
- Lubbers v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 105 Ill. 2d 201 (purpose of 2-1401: disclosure of factual matters unknown at time of judgment)
- Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273 (new evidence combined with old can show a cause of action; evidentiary hearing required when material facts are disputed)
- Vincent, People v., 226 Ill. 2d 1 (procedural review standards for 2-1401 dismissals and judgments on the pleadings)
- Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 227 Ill. 2d 147 (choice-of-law objective: apply law of jurisdiction with most significant relationship)