Yelton v. PHI, INC.
669 F.3d 577
5th Cir.2012Background
- Decedent Charles Wilbur Nelson III, a Florida resident, died in a helicopter crash off Louisiana during a flight to an offshore oil rig.
- The helicopter was owned/operated by PHI, Inc. and involved Sikorsky and other manufacturers/suppliers; eight of nine aboard were killed.
- Karen Nelson, as personal representative of Nelson’s estate, filed a Florida wrongful death suit on behalf of herself, her husband, and their grandson; competing Louisiana wrongful death claim followed for the grandson.
- Florida federal court transferred the Florida action to the Eastern District of Louisiana, where it was consolidated with related claims from the same crash.
- The district court applied Louisiana law under the most significant relationship test and dismissed the Florida plaintiff’s claim because Louisiana law bars a parent wrongful death action when the decedent left a surviving child.
- Nelson appealed, challenging whether Florida’s choice-of-law rules (section 6(1) vs. 6(2) Restatement) or Louisiana’s contacts dictated the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida § 6(1) directs extraterritorial application of Florida law | Nelson asserts Florida § 6(1) requires Florida law to apply. | PHI contends § 6(1) is not a directive that must apply extraterritorially. | No; § 6(1) is not a mandatory directive; § 6(2) governs. |
| Whether Louisiana has the most significant relationship under Restatement § 6(2) | Nelson argues Florida should apply due to residency and other factors. | PHI emphasizes Louisiana ties (corporate, maintenance, witnesses, flight path, rescue). | Louisiana has the most significant relationship; Louisiana law applied. |
| Whether Florida extraterritorial application is possible but not mandatory | Florida law may apply extraterritorially where Florida has the most significant relationship. | Florida act is not a mandatory extraterritorial directive here. | Florida extraterritorial application is not compelled; the court used § 6(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes ex rel. Bloom v. Unitech Aircraft Service, Inc., 662 So.2d 999 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995) (discussed extraterritorial application of Florida Wrongful Death Act; §6(1) directive not found)
- Judge v. American Motors Corp., Unknown official reporter (11th Cir. 1990) (Erie guess on absence of §6(1) directive; MSR framework applied)
- Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So.2d 613 (Fla.App. 1983) (Florida court applied Florida law when Florida had most significant relationship)
- Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So.2d 290 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (lex loci delicti vs MSR transition context in conflict of laws)