Miller v. Gay

SPAETH, Before BECK, BROSKY JJ.

BROSKY, Judge: This action by appellant, Miller, was commenced Nancy damages who seeks she injuries suffered in an automo- Glaseow, bile accident that occurred in Delaware in Janu- ary, 1979. At the time of the accident Miss Miller was a passenger an by appellee automobile driven Robert L. Gay. resident; Miss Miller is a Delaware Mr. Gay resides in Pennsylvania.1 Mr. Gay filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging that Delaware law should applied be in this case and the complaint dismissed because Dela- ware Guest Statute2 precludes recovery by Miss Miller.

The lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of “forum non conveniens” and said that if even the forum were found to proper, be it would dismiss the complaint based on the Delaware statute. For the reasons that fol- low, we affirm the order.

We note not initially we would have dismissed this action on “forum non grounds. conveniens” Although the lower opinion court many discusses of the factors to be applied determining appropriateness of the forum chosen by plaintiff, e.g. see Tampax, Inc., Plum v. Pa. (1960), it does not mention what the opinion Plum says is one of the most important factors. defendant, 1. party appeal, The other named not a to this is a resident also, complaint Delaware. The was dismissed as to Miss Doucette appeal but no was taken from that order. Del.Code, 2. Ann. Title §

Citing Restatement, Second, Laws, (Ten- Conflict of 5, 1957), tative Redraft No. April comment to Section § 117(c), 560, 561, the Plum court stated at 160 A.2d at 553:

... The two most important factors look to the court’s retention of the case. are They that since it is for the plaintiff seat, to choose the his choice of a forum should not be except reasons, disturbed for weighty (2) that the action will not be dismissed any event unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff. factor, Because of the second entertained, the suit will be inappropriate no matter how may be, the forum if defend- ant cannot subjected jurisdiction in other states. The same plaintiff’s will be true if cause of action would elsewhere by be barred the statute of limitations, unless the court willing is to accept defendant’s stipulation that he will not raise this defense in the second state. See also Daugherty Inland Tugs, Pa.Super. (1976).

A.2d 465 Both Pennsylvania and year Delaware have two stat utes of limitation as personal actions,3 injury which have now run in this case. Dismissal of this complaint should not rest on forum non grounds conveniens when such a decision results in the plaintiff being unable to institute an action elsewhere.4

We agree nevertheless with the result reached lower court.

The lower court applied “significant relationship” test to the facts of this case and concluded that Pennsylvania does not have such a relationship with the parties or occur- rence. 5524, Pa.C.S.A. 10 Del.Code Annot. § 8119.

4. But see Railway Norman v. & Company, Western 228 Pa.Su- Norfolk 319, per. (1974) (a may conditionally state dismiss a case requiring stipulate the defendant accept that he will service and plead will not the statute of limitations in the more convenient forum.) Daugherty To the same effect Tugs see v. Company, Inland (1976). Pa.Super. A.2d

In Lines, Inc., v. United Air 416 Pa. 203 A.2d our Supreme Court abandoned the “lex loci delicti” rule that had been employed ques- choice of law tions and adopted “significant the relationship” theory. is, That the court refused to automatically apply occurred; which incident but instead ana- lyzed policies and interests underlying particular Id., issue before the court. 416 Pa. at 203 A.2d at 805. The sole connection with in the instant case is appellee, defendants, one of two named resides here. contrast,

In the accident occurred in Delaware. The plaintiff there, and one defendant reside and the lower court relationship found the the injured between Miss Miller and Mr. centered in Gay was Delaware. course,

Of we must do more than merely count contacts. See Cipolla Shaposka, 439 Pa. 267 A.2d (1970). The weight of the contacts is to be measured qualitatively Id., rather than quantatively. 439 Pa. at 267 A.2d at 856. case,

In Cipolla present as the underlying issue involved of the Delaware Guest Statute. The accident had occurred in Delaware. The court said that road,” because statute does not provide “rule of the the situs of the accident is not a relevant contact. We must not, therefore, rely upon situs of the occurrence in our case. guest Cipolla resided and the court said Pennsylvania’s policy permitting guest recovery made this Commonwealth a concerned jurisdiction. Similar- ly, the driver Delaware, was resident of making its host-protecting policy relevant.

The present reverse situation exists in the case. The is a Pennsylvania, driver resident of which has a guest-pro- tecting policy guest and the is a resident of host-protecting Delaware.

Under these circumstances we believe neither state seems significant to have a relationship as to the issue of guest vs. protection. host

We return to for Griffith, supra guidance as how to proceed the face of this seemingly neutral situation. The cites, court apparently with Sec- approval, 379a Restatement, tion of the Second which provided In an action for personal injury, local law of the state where the injury rights occurred determines the and parties, liabilities of the unless some other state has a more significant with the relationship occurrence and the parties as particular involved, to the issue in which event the local govern. law of latter state will 416 Pa. at Id. A.2d at

Section (adopted 146 of Restatement Second by the § American Institute in May, 379(a) Law 1969and replacing form, cited in Griffith), present its contains substantially similar language adding applied test to determine whether a state other than the significant situs has a relationship to the occurrence It parties. provides: or

In an action a personal injury, local law the state where the injury rights occurred determines the and unless, parties, liabilities of the with respect partic- to the issue, ular some other state has a significant more rela- § tionship under the principles stated in 6 to occur- rence and the parties, which event the local law the other applied. state will be

Section 6 states:

(1) court, A subject restrictions, to constitutional will statutory follow a its on directive of own state choice of law. directive, When is no there such the factors relevant

to the choice the applicable law include.

(a) the needs of the interstate international sys- tems,

(b) policies forum, the relevant (c) policies of other relevant interested states and relevant interests those states in the determination issue, of the particular

(d) the protection justified expectations,

(e) field of policies underlying particular the basic law, result,

(f) and of certainty, predictability uniformity and

(g) application ease the determination and of the law applied. to be policies earlier discussed the relative

We have Delaware, and do only forum and other interested state dispositive. find them not

However, do and certainty, predictability we believe by application of result will be aided uniformity application also find no difficulty Delaware law. We that law. significant relationship no We find of its rather than that of call for would Delaware. A.2d at 854 the supra

In 439 Pa. at Cipolla, wrote, of a state should not be Supreme Court “Inhabitants exceeding by that created their put jeopardy liability offering from a state state’s laws because visitor just 5 Analogously, decides to visit there.” we higher protection (here Delaware) of a should conclude that state inhabitants states, home given by not them their rights not be accorded offering higher protec a state because a visitor from just there. tion decides visit No-Fault Motor by Pennsylvania’s further guided

We are part: states relevant Vehicle Act6 which or of a survivor of a deceased right The of a victim the law of the by to sue in tort shall be determined victim If is not of such victim. a victim state of domicile state, right to sue shall be determined domicile in a such opinion interesting Cipolla concludes with the to note that the It is general approach a territorial view seems that “as a observation personal preferable to a view.” 1; 19, 1974, July No. Art. 40 P.S. 1009.- § P.L. 6. Act 110(c)(2). by law the state in which the resulting accident or injury damage to property occurs.

In Toter v. Knight, 278 Pa.Super. explained we the effect of this statute as follows: The provision embodies two 1.) choice-of-law principles: The right of the victim of a motor vehicle accident to sue in tort shall be determined domicile; law of his 2.) if the victim is not state, domiciled in a the victim’s right to sue shall be determined by the law of the state in which the Id., accident occurred. 278 Pa.Superior atCt. 550, 551, 420 A.2d at 678. Toter victim was domiciled in New Jersey arid was

injured in an automobile accident in Pennsylvania. We held right that his to sue in tort was to be determined by law of New Jersey.7

Similarly, we conclude that the appellant’s law of domicile Delaware, governs the instant case.

Appellant argues also if even Delaware law applies case, to this the Guest Statute restrictions do not. We have considered these arguments and reviewed the record before us. Because we believe that the trial court opinion ade- quately disposes of questions, these there is no further need for comment.

Order affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion.

SPAETH, Judge, dissenting:

I should reverse the order of the trial court and permit appellant proceed trial, to view, to for in my Pennsylvania rather than governs Delaware law this action.

I am join unable to the majority’s opinion for two reasons. First, the states majority that the choice of law rule con- 7. The issue in Jersey’s Toter centered on whether New $200 threshold $750, Pennsylvania’s amount or mandated Section 301 of the Act, No-Fault has to be met before the victim could recover in tort. directly Act, While the issue in our case does not involve the No-Fault we nonetheless find the discussion in Toter policy instructive as to the of this Commonwealth in automobile accident cases. conclusion that supports

tained in the No-Fault Act its has this case. But this case apply law should Delaware Second, majority Act. nothing to do with the No-Fault significant contacts Pennsylvania concludes that follows If this resolving problems. conflict of laws approach so, still, govern, law should it is not were but Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. so. Under v. United Air Griffith (1964),Pennsylvania 203 A.2d 796 follows a more “flexible approach, Pennsyl- and under the more flexible approach”, govern. vania law should

-1- if a court has jurisdiction It is settled that conflict of dispute, apply Pennsylvania the court will over governs to decide which state’s law principles laws Lines, Inc., See, v. United Air su e.g., matter. (1970). 439 Pa. Cipolla Shaposka, pra; statute, course, imposed by if rule is a conflict of laws Of Although majority that rule. concedes apply we must Act,” the No-Fault directly that this case “does not involve 110(c)(2) it nevertheless states that Section Slip op. at n. for its conclusion that Delaware provides support of the Act Id., 416 Pa. at 203 A.2d 796. governs this action. 110(c)(2) provides the Act It is true that Section deter- of a ... to sue tort shall be right victim “[t]he of domicile of such victim by mined the law of state § 1009.110(c)(2). complaint appellant In her ...” 40 P.S. value of services for averred that the cost or reasonable in the accident exceeded This she sustained injuries $750. exceeded the threshold injuries appellant’s averment—that however, for unnecessary, Section suing for tort —was right and then reinstates the to sue 301 of the Act abolishes met, respect any injury if its conditions are “with tort § 1009.301(a). in this State ...” P.S. place that takes Thus, place” outside injuries to sue tort “take[ ] need not meet the threshold re- the victim Pennsylvania, 301(a)(5), any or of the other require- of Section quirements ments of Section

Toter Pa.Super. (1980), Knight, A.2d 676 cited majority, There, is inapposite. question was whether New Jersey’s tort, threshold for suing or Pennsylvania’s, applied. Section 301 of applica- the Act was because ble the accident occurred Here, in Pennsylvania. since the Delaware, accident occurred in question of the applicable tort threshold is not before us. 110(c)(2) Section therefore has nothing to do with this case. any

Nor is other provision of the implicated. No-Fault Act Appellant has not made a claim for basic loss benefits. See § 1009.201(b). Moreover, P.S. the No-Fault Act is princi- § pally directed at travel, see, intra-state e.g., P.S. 1009.- 102(a), and at “a providing statewide system prompt and § benefits”, 102(b), basic loss id. for Pennsylvania resi- dents, and these concerns are not relevant here. Finally, the No-Fault Act. is an almost copy exact of The National No-Fault Act, Motor Vehicle Insurance Cong., S. 93rd (1974). 2d Sess. The drafters of the National Act envi- sioned that it nationwide, would be adopted and that the same principles would govern therefore the recovery rights victims, of all regardless of they injured. where were fact, adopted few states have the National Act to the extent has. We should therefore be especially reluctant to look to the choice of law provision of the No-Fault Act in deciding a case to which the Act does not apply. otherwise

-2- In concluding that applied, Delaware law should be complaint therefore dismissed on the basis of Dela- Statute, ware’s Guest the majority correctly notes that Pennsylvania has rejected the lex loci delicti—or law of the injury of resolving a conflict of laws —method issue. Lines, Inc., v. United Air 416 Pa. 1, correct, (1964). A.2d 796 According to the majority, the method is the “significant relationship” approach of the (Second) Restatement (1971). of Conflicts of Laws The significant relationship, contacts, or significant method of in three sec- issue is embodied

resolving a conflict law provides: Restatement. Section tions the Injuries Personal the the local law of personal injury, for a

In an action rights and occurred determines the injury the state where unless, the respect partic- parties, of the with liabilities rela- issue, significant state has a more some other ular §in 6 to the occur- principles the stated tionship under of the the local law parties, and the which event rence applied. state will be other provides: Section Principles

Choice-of-Law restrictions, will (1) court, to constitutional subject A on choice of directive of its own state statutory follow a law. directive, the factors relevant there is no such

(2) When rule of law include applicable to the choice sys- and international (a) needs of the interstate the tems, forum,

(b) policies of the the relevant and other interested states (c) policies of the relevant of those states the determina- relative interests the issue, particular tion of the expectations, (d) protection justified field of (e) underlying particular policies the basic law, result,

(f) uniformity and certainty, predictability of the law in the determination and (g) ease applied. to be 145(2)provides:

Finally, Section applying taken into account Contacts § to an applicable 6 to determine principles issue include: occurred,

(a) injury where place causing the conduct (b) injury where occurred, domicil,

(c) residence, the place of nationality, incorpo- place ration and of of business the and parties, (d) place the where the relationship, any, if between the parties is centered. are to

These contacts be evaluated to according their importance relative respect particular with to the issue. sections, Citing these the majority concludes that neither Pennsylvania nor significant Delaware has a relationship to this At dispute, that governs but Delaware law be- “certainty, cause and predictability uniformity of result will be aided of law,” Delaware id. at-. See § (Second) Restatement 6(2)(f). of Conflict of Laws I am not persuaded by reasoning. this Although the the majority applicable Restatement, cites sections of the it correctly does not apply them. The majority fails con- sider the choice-of-lawprinciples stated in Section which call for a of weighing the of importance policies relative the of Instead, the states involved. the merely majority states respective policies the of Pennsylvania and Delaware and contacts, the counts while that we must do acknowledging more than addition, count contacts. In majority appar- the gives ently equal weight each of the contacts identified. But of place the the injury and the of place the conduct causing the are to injury given weight only they be if have some independent significance. McSwain, See v. McSwain (1966); 420 Pa. v. United Air Griffith Lines, Inc., supra. place relationship The of where the the parties is may centered given weight, Kuchinic v. 422 Pa. McCrory, (1966), A.2d 897 it but is not on clear this record that Delaware should receive all the weight; we know that only the accident occurred while appellee appellant and on toway were their an engagement in Delaware. Compare Kuchinic McCrory, supra (Pennsylvania center of the relationship airplane pas- when sengers their host lived in Pennsylvania and accident during flight Georgia occurred from to Pittsburgh). event, any

In I disagree the majority with that significant approach contacts is the correct method by Lines, Air v. United to decide the case.

which Inc., supra, Court, after an exhaustive review Supreme theories on conflict authorities and various of the numerous laws, that the Second Restatement noted the concern Id. counting mere of contacts. encourage the would The also observed Pa. at 203 A.2d at 803. Court policy- there must be a agree authorities “almost all rule.” replace place injury analysis approach to rule, Id. injury Court Rejecting permits analysis rule which adopted “a more flexible the issues be- underlying particular interests policies and Id., 21, 805 Pa. at 203 A.2d at the court.” 416 fore omitted).1 of this rule (footnote operation The nature and in from its may gathered Griffith. that a resident The facts in were Griffith in Colorado in crash that occurred airplane killed an was Pennsylvania. Arizona to en route from plane the was while law, after death damages recoverable the Colorado Under or expenses and sustained earnings “limited to loss of were law, recov- to death.” Under prior incurred Pennsylva has said that Appeals the Third Circuit 1. The Court of analysis" resolving of in conflicts "governmental interest nia follows Co., (3rd See, Cir. F.2d 149 e.g., Reyno Piper 630 laws. Aircraft 1980), 102 S.Ct. 70 L.Ed.2d grounds, U.S. rev’d on other 454 Susen, (3d Cir.1978); (1981); Sucho 576 F.2d 546 Samuelson v. (3d Cir.1975). Company, F.2d majcz v. Hummel Chemical given analysis preference the is governmental interest Under the to have an interest in states are found of the forum. If both having an underlying of each state policies the law dispute, the analyzed, deter- the court must dispute must be and in the interest interests, to a policies, would be furthered or mine which state’s exists if one by application law. A false conflict greater of its extent question, and the other interest in the found to have no of the states is Currie, applied. generally B. Selected See will then be state’s law Currie, (1963); v. Jackson: A Recent Essays Comments on Babcock Laws, (1963). Colum.L.Rev. 1212 Development in Conflict they suggests consist- Pennsylvania cases are My the review of adopting analysis, I from governmental but refrain interest ent with the “more flexible perhaps less “flexible” as than that characterization Thus, Court said: “We are at in adopted in rule” Griffith. workable, development fair and flexible of a beginning of the more certain as it is which will become choice of law approach to applied specific cases our when before refined tested and further Id., A.2d at 806. 420 Pa. at courts.” ery be had present could for the worth the decedent’s likely earnings. Analyzing respective interests of Colo- rado and Pennsylvania, Court concluded that Colorado had relatively action, little interest in Pennsyl- but that vania’s interest was great. The state injury have any little if interest in the —Colorado—could damages, measure of unless the defendant had acted in laws, reliance on that state’s and in the case of an uninten- tort, tional “the argument reliance is almost untena- totally Id., 416 Pa. ble.” at 203 A.2d might at 806. Colorado compensation be interested of those who assist injured but party, this interest was injury absent when the Id., resulted in immediate death. Pa. at 203 A.2d at might Colorado also be in preventing interested its engaging speculative courts from damage computations, but it should not care if a Pennsylvania court engaged such computations. Finally, might Colorado be interested protecting verdicts, its residents from large while but Colorado, United did some it business was not domiciled there, furthermore, since its airplanes flew many over states, including states, like Pennsylvania, did not limit damages, it could itself protect against such verdicts. contrast, Pennsylvania, as “the domicile decedent and his family, vitally concerned with the administration of [was] decedent’s estate and the well-being surviving de- pendents to the granting extent of full recovery, including expected 24-25, earnings.” Id., 416 Pa. at 203 A.2d at 807. Griffith,

Since has to Court continued adhere to a' approach.” McSwain, 86, “flexible In McSwain Pa. v. (1966), the Court said: Whether the of policies one state rather than another should furthered in the only be event of a conflict can be determined within matrix litigation. of specific What sought analysis should is an extent be to which one demonstrated, state rather than another has by reason its and policies their connection and relevance to the dispute, priority matter in a of interest the application of its rule law.

Id., 420 Pa. at 215 A.2d at 682.2 A.2d Cipolla Shaposka, And Pa. v. (1970), the Court said: has the determining greater

In which state interest law, one method its is to see what contacts accident, state has the contacts being each with if relate to the only they “policies relevant interests doing the court.” When this it must be remem- before counting that a of contacts is not what bered mere is particular The of a state’s weight involved. contacts qualitative quantita- must be measured on a rather than scale. tive

Id., 439 Pa. at 267 A.2d at 856 (quoting v. Lines, Inc., supra Air Pa. at 203 A.2d at United 805).

Here, Cipolla supra, relies on majority Shaposka, case, support not it is the converse of this and does but a In resident majority’s Cipolla, Pennsylvania decision. in an injuries a Delaware driver for sustained automo- sued Supreme The accident that occurred Delaware. bile as a “concerned Pennsylvania jurisdiction” Court identified policy guests “it is that its should Pennsylvania’s because to their permitted injuries by recover caused hosts’ Id., However, 439 Pa. at A.2d 856. negligence.” said, concerns, greater: Delaware’s the Court were is “[I]t policy required its hosts should not be Delaware’s McSwain, McSwain, Pennsylvania and member Mr. resident coast, driving on the West was his the armed services stationed wife country Pennsylvania across when their automobile was and child Colorado, an and the child was killed. Mrs. involved in accident in Pennsylvania sued under the Colorado McSwain her husband permit recovery spous- Act. law did not between Death only interests in The Court concluded that while Colorado’s es. highways provide negligent on its and to deter conduct action—to payment not be disserved fund for the of local creditors —would law, application of mere fact that the accident ”[t]he Colorado, expression significant in absent the of a interest occurred state, justify give part of that does not our refusal to effect to on the Commonwealth, public policy the this ... that suits of instant the of Id., permitted.” at be 420 Pa. 215 A.2d at 683. sort not (the compensate hosts’) for their negligence.” Id. addi- tion, fact that involved in accident automobile “[T]he registered is and housed in gives Delaware that anoth- state contact er for it that appears depend insurance rates on will the state in which is registered automobile and housed Here, contrast, ...” Id. in a Delaware has sued resident a driver, and the in automobile involved accident is registered and in Pennsylvania. housed Penn- sylvania’s policy of to permitting guests injuries recover caused by their hosts’ is the it negligence same as was -in detail, but as be in Cipolla, greater will discussed it cannot said that policy protecting Delaware’s its hosts from by ungrateful guests suits by application is served of Dela- law. In Cipolla, ware Court stated: “Inhabitants of a put state should in not be jeopardy liability exceeding created by their state’s just law because a visitor from offering higher protection a state decides to there.” visit Id., 439 Here, Pa. at 267 A.2d at 856-57. appellant, by Delaware, driving his into automobile did not himself in put jeopardy incurring greater liability than that to which he already was subject Pennsylvania, his home state. In- stead, although Delaware, a non-resident of he to use seeks shield, the Delaware Guest Statute as which is very different from situation in Cipolla, where a Delaware resident invoked the statute.

I therefore conclude that we should apply the “flexible adopted rule” by Supreme Court v. United Lines, Inc., case, supra, Air this should consider the respective interests Delaware and' this which case determine state has the stronger interest having its applied.

Delaware’s Statute permits recovery guest Guest by if the guest proves an automobile injury was “intentional” or “caused or willful wanton [the driver’s] disregard rights others.” Del.Code Ann. tit. § 6101(a). courts found purposes Delaware have that two

482 underlying purpose The first

underlie Guest Statute. of their ingratitude from the protect the statute is to hosts Inc., 59 Del. See, Synthetic Ropes, Fields v. guests. e.g., Sech, v. (Del.Super.Ct.1966); 219 A.2d 374 Colombo v. Po (Del.Super.Ct.1960); Engle 163 A.2d 270 Del. v. (Del.Super.Ct.1952); 91 A.2d 326 Robb land, 47 Del. (Del.Su 520, 14 A.2d 394 Associates, Inc., 40 Del. Ramey Workman, F.Supp. also v. per.Ct.1940). See Wilson purpose underlying stat (D.Del.1961). The second guests hosts and prevent is to collusion between ute See, companies. McHugh e.g., to defraud insurance efforts (1956); Brown, Gallegher 125 A.2d 583 v. 50 Del. v. (1936). A. 620 also Truitt v. Davis, 37 Del. See (3d (D.Del.1961), 318 F.2d 461 Gaines, F.Supp. aff'd Cir.1968). has said: Supreme Court

The Delaware Guest Statute so of the Automobile Because results, harsh, unfair, and unreasonable often results excep- to carve out general tendency courts have shown in the interest of of the Statute operation tions to the that tenden- have demonstrated Our own courts justice. cy. (Del.1974). Gatchell, 325 A.2d 97 v.

Justice Nevertheless, constitutionality upheld the court to carve out further statute, its reluctance and indicated to repeal had declined legislature since the exceptions, Bierer, 447 A.2d 1189 v. statute. See also Pierce Id. constitutional). (also statute as (Del.1982) upholding Statute, the Delaware In the Delaware Guest applying “guest.” See limited the definition narrowly have courts of son’s (mother guests and son not Gaines, supra Truitt v. Robinson, doctor); v. to the driving them teacher Mumford accompa- friend of driver (Del.1967)(personal promised since she guest store not driver to fabric nying return). limiting their sewing lesson on driver give people more (and permitting thus “guest” definition for their hosts’ ordinary negligence), recover the courts principle that, have relied on the as statute derogation law, of the common the Guest Statute should strictly against operator. construed the owner and See v. Truitt Gaines, supra; Synthetic Inc., Fields Ropes, supra.. Moreover, the courts have noted the reach of the statute should not beyond be extended the evils it was designed Sech, to correct. supra; Colombo v. v. Fields Inc., Synthetic Ropes, supra; Associates, Robb v. Ramey Inc., supra. of

On basis these I decisions conclude that Delaware has little in interest its Guest Statute being applied to this case. The Guest Statute could not have been intended to an protect out-of-state host’s reliance on it as protecting him, for as Supreme Court said v. United Lines, Inc., 23, Air 416 supra, 806, Pa. at 203 at A.2d “[I]n the case of an tort, unintentional argument reliance is almost totally untenable.” And one purpose while statute is to protect Delaware from ingratitude hosts of guests, their of scope that protection is limited. The Delaware courts made plain have because the results harsh, the statute are often the statute should not be applied any broadly more than This necessary. only is another way saying that in protect- Delaware’s interest ing its hosts from guests’ ingratitude their is Its limited. interest protecting out-of-state hosts must therefore be still more limited. Nor is in preventing Delaware’s interest collusion between hosts and guests efforts to defraud insurance companies fraud, substantial. The if any, will be insurer, which, upon worked an in view of the of a absence guest statute in Pennsylvania, adjust, can and presumably adjusted, has Stich, its rates See accordingly. Bolgrean v. 8, 10, 442, (1972) 293 Minn. 444 N.W.2d (“only party predictability concerned with is insurer and the insurer vehicle, assumed, a Minnesota it must charged rates risks.”); applicable to Minnesota Tooker Lopez, v. 24 N.Y. 569, 575, 519, 394, 301 N.Y.S.2d 249 N.E.2d fraudulent claims preventing purpose statute’s (guest carrier and insurer is New York when cannot be vindicated such circum- “[Ujnder in New defendant is sued York— has guest statute stances, enacting the jurisdiction law.”); its in the no interest absolutely 439 Pa. at supra Shaposka, v. compare Cipolla was insured it relevant that vehicle (finding A.2d at 856 should Pennsylvania law issue is whether Delaware when apply). Delaware, has a substantial

In contrast to It to this case. is settled having apply its law interest may recover from a guest law a that under negligence. Bakery Denton v. Michel’s ordinary host for (1950); 502, 70 A.2d 284 Fair v. Snowball Co., 363 Pa. (1973); 310 A.2d 386 Inc., Pa.Super. Express, (1971); 281 A.2d 761 Love, Pa.Super. v. Reagan Pa.Super. Yesenosky, Hopshire change declined to this Assembly has (1945). The General statute, as some states such as guest a by enacting law policy protecting Pennsylvania’s have done. Delaware in No-fault expressed is further passengers automobile passengers and Act, distinguish not between which does law, frustrates majority Delaware By applying drivers. victims, in that accident seeing this interest of drivers, for their should recover or passengers whether losses. law should be that

I therefore conclude believe, is, required I case. This conclusion applied to this Lines, Inc., addi- supra, but Air v. United as the regarded tion, may with what be it is consistent jurisdictions. from other decisions better-reasoned as this a case such have described commentators Some host-protect- in a resides plaintiff one—a case which defendant, state —as guest-protecting in a state, and ing Currie, case,” Cramton, D. H. R. & “unprovided (3d 1981), and the ed. state that of Laws 281 Conflict Kay,

485 apply would its own law rather than the generous less of the plaintiffs domicile as pursuing an “altruistic inter Schreter, est.” Currie & Unconstitutional Discrimination the Conflict of Privileges Immunities, Laws: and in B. Currie, Essays Selected on the Conflict of Laws (1963). I have found three “unprovided decisions such them, for cases.” Two of Labree v. Major, R.I. (1973), Stich, v. Bolgrean 8,Minn. 196 (1972), N.W.2d are consistent with the I approach would here; in apply each, the plaintiff from host-protecting permitted state was under recover the forum’s more generous third, In the law. Kuehner, Neumeier N.Y.2d 335 N.Y.S.2d 286 N.E.2d 454 (1972), Appeals New York Court of guest held the statute of the plaintiff’s domicile a applicable in suit against New York (There resident. ais fourth decision in which the precise question issue, was not an where Jersey but the New Supreme Court indicated that it would inclined permit recovery by the plaintiff guest from the statute state. v. Trent Aluminum Company, N.J. 263 A.2d Pfau (dicta)). Kuehner, Neumeir v. supra, the court stated that cases involving and a passenger driver domiciled in differ- states, ent applicable rule decision will be that the state

where the accident occurred not if can but it be shown displacing normally applicable rule will advance the relevant purposes impairing substantive law without working the smooth or system produc- multi-state ing great uncertainty for litigants. 128, 70,

Id. at 335 N.Y.S.2d at 286 N.E.2d at 458 (quoting 569, Lopez, 586, 519, Tooker v. 24 N.Y.2d 301 N.Y.S.2d 533, 394, J., 249 (FULD, N.E.2d 404 concurring)). The court reasoned that applying New York law would expose New York greater liability, residents to they when guest in jurisdictions, travel statute than persons domiciled 486 to,

in are and that jurisdictions subject such working “impair ... the smooth New York law would uncertainty for produce great system the multi-state [and] 129, Id. at encouraging shopping. forum litigants” by its 70-71, N.E.2d at 458. In the course of at N.Y.S.2d interest in the case: discussed New York’s opinion the court has a interest although deep New York It is clear that state, residents, foreign in a injured protecting its own state, it statutes of that unfair or anachronistic against ignoring public policy interest iri legitimate has no protecting as Ontario—and foreign jurisdiction —such legis- there from guest injured domiciled plaintiff addressed, least, to a resident very at the obviously lation its traveling in a within borders. riding vehicle 125-26, Kuehner, at supra N.Y.2d Neumeier v. at 286 N.E.2d at 456. N.Y.S.2d If the accident by reasoning.3 I not this persuaded am rather than Dela- Pennsylvania case had occurred this dictate that Penn- ware, supra, would Cipolla Shaposka, v. Also, apply courts the Delaware would apply. sylvania gives here of Delaware law Application law.4 v. injury, see Labree weight place undue to the at 306 A.2d at when 111 R.I. Major, supra Lines, Inc., progeny and its supra, v. United Air show, I tried to As have approach. rejected have apply, its law whereas having little interest Delaware has interest, is not related which has a substantial injury. to the Sedler, See, e.g., Rules reasoning elsewhere. has been criticized

3. The Judicial Method in Choice-of-Law Rules: of Law Versus of Choice Comment, Cases, (1977); Tenn.L.Rev. 987-94 Torts Conflicts Guest Statute Rules in New York: The Fuldian Tort Choice-of-Law v. Case, Syracuse Hypothetical Principles in a Professor Cavers’ (1974). L.Rev. 1005 (1965), Smoot, Friday Del. I note that in against a Delaware host guest to maintain suit was allowed Delaware Jersey. may The result injuries an accident in New suffered in the lex loci delicti method strict adherence to explained Delaware’s resolving conflicts. Nor am I should here persuaded apply Delaware law residents Pennsylvania subject because otherwise will be in Delaware when Delaware residents are not. liability First, Pennsylvania seeing has an interest in its li- censed are held to the standard in ordinary drivers care second, the of their motor And operation vehicles. the a expectation Pennsylvania upon crossing driver state border into Delaware is in his determining irrelevant for the commission of liability unintentional torts. Griffith Lines, Inc., supra. v. United Air As the Rhode Island Supreme Court has said: are not

[Mjotor planned____ vehicle accidents No driver driving alters his manner of when he crosses into a state degree holds him to a lesser of care his which towards he foresee passenger, legal because would his liabilities light accident cases in of his own state’s law. 671-672,

Labree v. at at 817. Major, supra A.2d Nor, view, majority’s “certainty, contrast to the will predictability uniformity” by applying be better served I contrary, approach urged Delaware law. To the have would better serve those interests than does that adopted and in For other majority Neumeier v. Kuehner.5 jurisdictions would know that has an interest seeing to it that a injures resident who in an held to the nonresident automobile accident is same standard of care as he had he injured Pennsylva- would be nia resident.

The order of the lower court should therefore be re- versed. Major, supra, Labree v. the court said: prefer parties We a rule that looks to residence of rather place resolving problems than to the of the accident conflicts Thus, arising out of automobile accidents. where a driver is from a passenger ordinary negligence, state which allows a to recover for plaintiff ordinary negligence, plaintiff should recover for should no matter what the law recover of his residence or the accident____ adopt only We this rule because the state with protecting an interest the driver and his insurer does not do so. Id. at 306 A.2d at 817-18.

Case Details

Case Name: Miller v. Gay

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Dec 16, 1983

Citation: 470 A.2d 1353

Docket Number: 1290

Court Abbreviation: Pa.