*1 is, by comparison, no sub- injustice.” There as moti- liberty stake such interest at
stantial Baker, involving the a case court in vated probation violator to civil commitment length indefinite hospital for an psychiatric time, passed on below. an issue to resolve efficiency procedural promote
Nor would precedent upsetting the normal to establish by district of issues pattern of consideration appellate courts. VII above, the dis- For the reasons discussed injunction is preliminary trict order court’s AFFIRMED, stay of that order is remanded to The case
DISSOLVED. proceedings. for further district court F.Supp. 486.
See also: 784 al., MacDONALD, et
Alexander Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross- (95-6028/6286)
Appellees, CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
(95-6030/6287). 95-6028, 95-6030, 95- Nos. and 95-6287. Appeals, Court United States Sixth Circuit. Argued Oct. 1996. April Decided *2 conditions, Jr., Manier, Herod, braking Doran, front some Hol- wheels under M. James Nashville, TN, making the Smith, thus vehicle “rear-biased.” labough S. Jerome & Gascon, briefed), M. Todd Levy (argued and Ultimately, settled their Associates, IL, Chicago, Levy, Leopold & University of against claims Kansas and MacDonald, MacDonald, Of- Joan Alexander employees proceeded against to trial *3 Stanfield, Hall, Peter Cannistra. ray Susan 10, April 1995, Motors alone. General On Griffin, IL, jury plaintiffs’ I. the a verdict Hugh Chicago, Diane returned the C. favor, briefed), finding percent, (argued and Thomas J. General Motors one Jennings Brook, Burke, Jr., Lord, University employ- the Chicago, and of Kansas and its Bissell & Collins, IL, Stahl, ninety-nine percent & Nash- ees at fault. The district F. Cornelius Noel ville, TN, Corporation. judgment the court entered on verdict and for Motors General parties’ judgment denied the motions for as a MARTIN, Judge; Chief Before: a trial. matter of law and for new MOORE, Judges. Circuit WELLFORD plaintiffs appeal, On both the and General objections Motors raise to the district court’s MARTIN, J., opinion of C. delivered plaintiffs decision. The assert that the dis- MOORE, J., court, joined. in which it per- trict court abused its discretion when WELLFORD, 348-51), (pp. delivered a J. mitted Motors to offer evidence of General opinion parts separate dissenting as to II and University negligence of Kansas III. employees. its The this base Jr., MARTIN, Judge. F. Chief BOYCE objection their claim that certain remarks p.m. At on October approximately 10:30 during opening state- made General Motors’ 29, 1987, University six members of “judicial ment constituted admissions” that of their debate team and three In should have excluded such evidence. ad- driving a coaches were to tournament dition, argue that the district Georgia appeared deer front of when a applying the local of Kan- court erred highway on an interstate near their van to than that of North Dakota sas rather (cid:127) driver, Clarksville, Philip The Tennessee. the Mac- measurement of Voight, graduate student and a debate claim, ground death on the Donalds’ University had coach at family all MacDonald re: that members just a few months ceived his driver’s license of North Dakota. its were domiciliaries Voight to avoid the earlier. When swerved appeal, Motors asserts that the dis- General deer, up, the van locked the rear brakes of improperly its motion for trict court denied vehicle, Voight control of lost judgment as a matter of law. For the rea- highway rolled over van ran off the below, we. the district sons set forth hold that coming to rest. David several times before admitting challenged not err in court did MacDonald, a team student debate motion denying General Motors’ evidence or member, of the accident. died as result However, judgment as of law. a matter Cannistra, student, Peter ren- Another was court’s to we reverse district decision paraplegic. passengers, other dered a Two apply to the measurement Kansas law Stanfield, Ofray Hall Susan suffered for the MacDonalds’ injuries fully. but substantial recovered claim, and remand with instructions to that issue. North Dakota law Hall, Cannistra, Stanfield, and Mac- University initially sued the Donald’s estate I. employees, including and its of Kansas plaintiffs’ appeal issue on first negligence Voight, alleging caused their challenge of certain evi- to the admission the accident. The later added statements, During opening General dence. Motors, alleging against claim General following remarks: counsel made the purchaser adequate- failed to advise the van’s wrong in maintenance, [Voight] anything our didn’t do ly regarding proper brake probably have defectively He should designed be- estimation. the van was in a or tried brake struck deer cause the rear wheels would lock before Oscanyan, straight line than it. set forth in we are most reluctant rather swerve to avoid many probably what most of ambiguous He did us to hold that con such statements emergency have if would done the same judicial Oscanyan stitute admissions. As presented situation itself. clear, court made a doubt exists “[i]f suggest suggesting Let me we are not counsel, with the statement the court will Voight negligent. Phil he was What did directions, hold as where the evidence is Probably probably predictable. was conflicting, and leave the deter matter appropriate. jury.” mination of the Id. at 263. also sight. Don’t It an accident. It lose Chesapeake Ry. & Ohio Koserkoff negli- was an accident not the result (6th denied, Cir.1970), F.2d cert. gence any- or fault General or U.S. S.Ct. 28 L.Ed.2d body else. (1971) (holding “positive statement *4 trial, day admission, The next of the asked required binding fact” is for a not the court to bar from statements”). General Motors intro- “contradictory ducing any Voight’s driving expe- of evidence ground Second, negligence,
rience or
on
that
the
the
the
were
de
statements
not
judicial
above statements were
admissions
present
right
liberate
of
evi
waivers
the
Voight
negligent.
that
was not
The court
University’s negli
of Voight’s
dence
and the
plaintiffs’ request.
denied the
Later
gence. The First
has
Circuit
stated:
trial,
prior
but
to General Motors’ case in
ju-
binding consequences,
of their
Because
chief,
request by
made a similar
generally
only
dicial admissions
arise
from
It, too,
motion.
written
was denied
voluntarily
deliberate
waivers that ex-
appeal,
plaintiffs challenge
court. On
fact____
pressly
alleged
concede ...
an
rulings.
these
policy
of fairness
[Considerations
and the
We review the district court’s deter
judicial
require
encouraging
of
admissions
particular
mination as to whether a
state
judges
given
that trial
be
broad discretion
judicial
ment constitutes a
admission that
parties
consequences
to relieve
of
from
certain
excludes
evidence under the abuse of
judicial
in appropriate
admissions
cases.
Cohen,
discretion standard. United States v.
941,
v. Belculfine,
United States
527 F.2d
944
(6th Cir.1991).
430,
In
946 F.2d
435
(1st
(citations
Cir.1975)
omitted). Under
evidentiary ruling,
context of an
an abuse of
principles,
these
the district
well
court was
reviewing
discretion exists when the
court is
within its discretion
that
to conclude
General
firmly convinced that a mistake has been
Motors’ counsel’s statements
not
were
bind-
regarding
made
the admission of evidence.
ing
simply
admissions.
Nat’l,
Counsel’s remarks
v.
Nida
Plant Protection Ass’n
7 F.3d
(6th Cir.1993).
522,
voluntary
were not
527
“deliberate
waivers.”
Applying this stan
During
statement,
of
present
opening
dard to the facts
the same
we
counsel
say
cannot
that
court
Voight’s
driving
the district
abused
of
experience
discussed
lack
in finding
discretion
that General
explained
Motors’
and
original-
had
during opening
remarks
were
statements
not
ly
only Voight
University
sued
admissions,
judicial
denying
therefore
negligence.
Kansas for
Such
are
comments
plaintiffs’ request
to exclude evidence
fundamentally
any
odds
intent
challenged
related to the
statements.
argument
Voight’s negligence
waive
caused the accident. Our
in Harri-
decision
qualify
judicial
In order to
ad
Turnpike
son Construction Co. v. Ohio
Com-
missions,
attorney’s
an
must
statements
mission,
(6th Cir.1963) supports
341 present diversity such as the In a action Motors’ finally, General Third one, applies conflicts a federal opinions dealt with statements counsel’s Tompkins, R.R. v. the forum state. Erie conclusions, reluctant are thus and we legal 64, 817, 82 L.Ed.1188 304 U.S. S.Ct. binding judicial admissions. them as to treat (1938). Waller, Thus, apply Tennessee law to we v. See, Cas. Co. e.g., New Amsterdam denied, (4th Cir.1963), proper whether the district court 20, cert. determine F.2d 1124, ly applied 11 L.Ed.2d Kansas law to determine 84 S.Ct. 376 U.S. wrongful death claim. (1964). Motor MacDonalds’ v. White for the also Glick Cir.1972) (“The (3d scope significant 1287, 1291 adopted the “most Tennessee has F.2d matters relationship” approach is restricted of the Restatement judicial admissions require eviden- otherwise would of Laws Hata fact which of Conflict (Tenn. include counsel’s McKinley, tiary proof, way and does 830 S.W.2d 1992). legal theo conception of his statement case.”). negligence
ry Determinations of a explains 178 of the Restatement Section applica require the causation proximate application of “the law selected an pat complex factual of law to tion of rules § 175 determines the measure rule of contrast, admissions, typi Judicial terns. action for death.” an of fact. Since matters cally concern of Conflict Laws dealt counsel’s statements General turn, sets forth 178. Section *5 (i.e., Voight whether legal conclusions with significant relation- of the “most foundation the he caused and whether negligent test,” as follows: ship and reads not, reasoning accident), the they do under Right § of Action for Death. 175. Glick, constitute and forth Waller set death, the local In an action for to rule Were we binding judicial admissions. injury the occurred law of the state where otherwise, turning a valuable be we would of the rights and liabilities determines the device, voluntary use time-saving the unless, respect particu- parties with trap encouraged, into which should issue, has a more lar some other state unwary. the princi- under the significant relationship unpersuaded court was The district § the occurrence and ples stated in 6 to counsel of General the comments the local law of parties, in which event the light of the judicial admissions. applied. state will be the other po- authority against plaintiffs’ weight of of Laws of Conflict Restatement sition, abused say that the court we cannot § 175. to treat them it refused discretion when principles are Restatement Voight’s Other relevant evidence of and admitted as such 145, which are 6 and forth sections set University’s negligence. and the address, which by 175 and section referenced principles of law general choice respectively,
II.
applicable
tort
principles
choice of law
sections is as
full text of these
actions. The
appeal
is the
issue on
The next
follows:
of dam
for the measurement
choice of law
wrongful death
ages
Principles.
for the MacDonalds’
§ 6. Choice-of-Law
law,
applied
The district
claim.
(1)
court,
re-
subject to constitutional
A
$100,-
damages to
non-pecuniary
limits
which
strictions,
statutory
directive
will follow
(1995).
§ 60-1903
Kan.Stat.Ann.
000.00. See
of law.
state on choice
of its own
Dakota
argue that North
MacDonalds
The
directive,
(2)
no such
there is
When
damages, was
law,
cap on
places no
which
appli-
choice of the
relevant to the
factors
§ 32-
N.D.Cent.Code
appropriate.
more
See
law include:
cable rule of
(1993).
a district court’s
review
03.2-04
We
(a)
and inter-
the interstate
the needs of
de novo. Salve
of law determination
choice
systems,
national
Russell,
225, 231,
College 499 U.S.
Regina
forum,
(b)
policies of the
the relevant
1217, 1221,
L.Ed.2d 190
111 S.Ct.
(e)the
policies
relationship
relevant
of other inter-
cant
to the occurrence and the
parties.
ested states and the relative interests of
examining
We do this
the con-
states in
those
the determination of the
tacts set forth in section 145 of the Restate-
issue,
(1)
particular
place
ment:
injury
where the
oc-
(2)
curred;
place
(d)
where the conduct
justified expecta-
the protection of
(3)
occurred;
domicile,
causing
injury
tions,
residence, nationality, place
incorporation
(e)
policies underlying
par-
the basic
(4)
place
parties;
of business of the
law,
ticular field of
place
where the
between the
(f) certainty, predictability
uniformi-
parties
Hataway,
centered.
result,
ty of
guided
analysis
S.W.2d at 59.
We are
this
(g)
appli-
ease in the determination and
by general principles governing choice of
applied.
cation of the law to be
law, including: interests
each state
§
Principle.
145. The General
having
applied;
policies
its law
the relevant
(1)
rights
parties
and liabilities of the
forum; certainty,
of the
predictability and
respect
with
to an issue
tort are deter-
result;
uniformity of
in the
ease
determina-
which,
mined
the local
law
state
application
tion
applied;
of the law to be
issue,
respect
to that
has the most
order;
promotion
of interstate
significant relationship to the occurrence
policies underlying
basic
the field of law.
parties
principles
under the
stated
of Conflict of Laws
§in
§ 6.
Hataway,
See also
Restatement of Conflict of Laws Michigan, and the state where General Mo- 6,145. §§ designed tors the van. The decedent was approach, Under the Restatement where domiciled in North Dakota but was a resi- wrongful issue, death are at the dent of Kansas at the time of his death. The applies local the law of the parents, state where decedent’s the in this occurred, injury the suit, unless some other state death are domiciled and reside significant has a relationship more to the North Dakota. General Motors’ domicile damages, issue of Delaware, the occurrence and the Michigan place incorpo- is its parties. Restatement business, of Conflict of ration and principal place of and it 175, §§ Laws In Kansas, the present Dakota, conducts business North parties agree the that the law of Ten- and Tennessee. The center the relation- nessee, occurred, injury state where the ship persons is Kansas: all in the van were applied should not be Kansas; because the location of residents of purchased, the van was Thus, accident there was fortuitous. garaged, sec- and maintained in Kansas a tion requires 175 of the Restatement organization; we Kansas passengers board- determine, respect with Kansas; to the issue of dam- ed the van in trip ages, which signifi- other state has the Thus, most scheduled to terminate there as well. parties agree no point toward that the first two con- contacts Restatement tacts, place injury place of conduct and cover Ten- particular, but rather one state (which point toward Tennessee and Michi- Kansas, Dakota, nessee, Michigan, North Thus, gan), controlling not be should here. Delaware. we must examine last two contacts to trial, argued, and the At General Motors determine which to to de- state’s law agreed, that Kansas was district court damages, giving to termine due consideration significant the most relation- state that had policy concerns discussed above. aspects ship all of the MacDonalds’ with domicile, The third set of contacts — claim. General Motors based residence, nationality, place incorporation ground on the that where this assertion place parties of business of the —in scattered, are the “center of contacts states, Delaware, including volves several relationship” important is the most factor in Kansas, A Michigan, and North Dakota. of law This making a choice determination. person’s permanent “domicile” is his or her premise is incorrect. The mere fact home, principal to she in which he or automatically contacts are scattered does not away. Snodgrass tends return whenever heighten importance the “center of Snodgrass, Tenn.App. 357 S.W.2d Here, may relationship” contact. be (1961) (defining “domicile” as “the relationship, no other the center of but place person principal home “where has his fortunes; are there: important place enjoyment contacts located of his leave, expect except for his which he does not was a resident of but decedent absent, purpose; from which when he remained Dakota. See domicile wayfarer; to himself a to which when seems (Second) of of Laws Conflict travel’”) (citations returns, he ceases he (1971) center of (noting 145 cmt. e omitted). See also Eastman v. Univ. of may important most Cir.1990) (6th Michigan, 30 F.3d 672-73 occasions, when a on rare such as contact (stating person’s or her domicile is his plaintiff injured X train from state in a “true, fixed, permanent princi home passing Y and through while state accident place which pal establishment” is “the contacts important other are also located absent”) ... [or she] he returns whenever state) added). Instead, (emphasis (6th Dictionary ed. (citing Black’s Law clear is to Restatement makes that the court 1990)). contrast, requires “residence” “according contacts to their rel- evaluate the presence to re “physical and an intention particu- importance respect ative time, period some indefinite main but *7 issue,” accomplished lar and that this is to be (citing necessarily permanently.” Id. at 673 by carefully examining policies behind 1308-9). Dictionary Under Black’s Law at laws of the states and the interested definitions, domi these North Dakota is the Re- interests of those states in the claim. par of David MacDonald and his cile both (Second) §§ of Conflict of Laws statement it parents’ It is his because ents. domicile (1971). 145(2); regard § 145 cmt. e In this permanent home. their established and emphasize specifi- we that the Restatement Likewise, North is David Mac Dakota importance in cally discusses the of domicile domicile Donald’s domicile because it was his determining of choice law for the measure- college prior to and there is no evidence that wrongful ment in a action. of death a intended to it to establish he ever abandon 178 exam- explains, Comment b to section Kansas, which is what he new domicile ple, a situation state is “[i]n where one change to to his would have had have done defendant, of domicil of the state to that state. In re Conserva domicile beneficiaries, seem decedent would (Tenn. Clayton, torship 89 S.W.2d of that, least, ordinarily wrongful at death (stating change to domi Ct.App.1995) applied to statute of this state should be cile, actually change his or person must damages.” the measure Re- determine of to a new to aban place, her residence intend (Second) § domicile, of statement Conflict of Laws old and intend to es don his or her residence). domicile the new cmt. b. tablish a new suggests That David resided Kansas while school contacts that North Dakota has nothing significant thus does to diminish the fact that most to the measure Dakota North was his domicile. wrongful of for the MacDonald’s death claim. parents While David MacDonald and his Dakota, clearly were domiciliaries of North The fourth contact —the center of the rela- note, and we General Motors makes much of tionship points to Kansas. As noted earli- — MacDonald, the fact that David who was er, persons all in the van lived in Kansas. Kansas, University attending the of purchased, garaged, The van was and main- technically a resident of Kansas at the time organization, tained in Kansas acknowledge of his we David’s death. While and the students and coaches boarded Kansas, we find connection nonetheless trip van Kansas for a that was to termi- the third set Restatement contacts nate in that state. Dakota, points where the law domiciled, parents David and his rather fourth third and contacts thus Kansas, than to where David alone was point to the law of North Dakota and merely a This resident. conclusion is based respectively. To determine which of these opinion although on our residence ais important, contacts is more we first examine contacts, factor in the third set of. it is not as policies behind the laws of these two significant a factor domicile. Not (Second) states. Restatement Conflict person’s to his connection or her domicile (1971). § § Laws 145 cmt. e See also In any more substantial than links he or she Boston, re Air Crash Disaster at Massachu may place, places, have to his or her or 31, 1973, 1106, 1112 July F.Supp. setts on residence, clearly but a state has more of an (D.Mass.1975) (noting policy that “[t]he un preserving interest the welfare of its domi- derlying important each statute is an consid persons ciliaries —those have who made the determining eration in which state has the true, fixed, permanent state their issue”). significant more connection with the home—than persons that of its residents — wrongful North Dakota’s death statute is necessarily who live the state without hav- designed compensate fully the victim any ing permanent there, connections pecuniary non-pecuniary both loss. may who are domiciled and have residences § N.D.Cent.Code 32-03.2-04 This Indeed, in other states. the Restatement purpose policy compen conforms with the suggests itself that domicile is the more im- underlying theory recovery sation portant factor in the third set of section 145 all tort actions. See Restatement contacts. See Restatement of Con- (1971) § Conflict of (stating Laws § flict of Laws cmt. (emphasizing b general principles choice of law include a importance defendant, of the domicile of the policies consideration of underlying decedent, and the beneficiaries in deter- law). comparison, relevant field of Kan mining which state’s death statute statute, sas’ Kan.Stat.Ann. damages), § to determine 145 cmt. d (1995), goals: compensat 60-1903 has two (noting that per- the state where interested ing eliminating the victim’s next of kin and typically sons are greatest domiciled has the *8 excessive jury verdicts that can result from in having applied interest its law to resolve a sympathy family. for the decedent’s In an action). reasons, tort For these we find that effort goals, to balance these two the statute David MacDonald’s domicile—North Dako- $100,000.00 imposes a cap non-pecuniary on important ta —is a more contact than his damages.1 limitation, Given this Kansas’ purposes applying residence for of the Re- statute does completely satisfy goal the significant relationship statement’s most test. plaintiff of tort actions —to make the whole. Given that both David MacDonald and his parents Dakota, were domiciliaries of North step Our next is to evaluate the interests we conclude that the third set of section of Kansas and North Dakota in applying cap 1. The Report Legislative was added to the Kansas statute in an on Kansas Interim Studies perceived effort to alleviate a crisis in the avail- 568-9, (Dec.1986). Legislature to the 1987 ability affordability liability of insurance. measurement of dam- contact that it was the site acci- their own laws dent. Id.2 wrongful particular death claim. ages for this (Second) of Conflict of Laws in As with Massachusetts’ interest the Air 6, § North Dakota’s § cmt. e claim, in Disaster Kansas’ interest Crash this North Dakota is the
interest is substantial.
is not
great
claim
as North Dakota’s.
heirs,
the decedent
his
in ensuring
domicile of both
Kansas does
an interest
have
compensat-
assuring
adequately
in
that
that its
“strong
and it
interest
residents are
has a
injuries,
for their
ed
but this interest
ade-
fully compensated for the
next of kin are
quately
by applying
served
North Dakota
its
Air
tortious death” of
domiciliaries.
Moreover, applying
law.
the Kansas statute
Disaster,
F.Supp.
Signif-
Crash
policy of
would frustrate North Dakota’s
ful-
icantly,
emphasizes
im-
the Restatement
ly
for
compensating its domiciliaries
their
the law of
portance
applying
of
the state
injuries. And
an
while Kansas also has
in-
persons are domiciled to
where interested
protecting
terest in
its residents from exces-
wrongful
damages in
determine
death
verdicts,
jury
sive
this interest
is not as
(Sec-
other
actions. See Restatement
tort
compelling in
where all residents
this
ond)
§
(stating
178 cmt.
of Laws
b
Conflict
(the University,
employees,
Kansas
that
is the state of domicile
where one state
Voight) who
have
were defendants
settled
decedent,
defendant,
bene-
by
jury’s
and will not
dam-
be affected
ficiaries,
wrongful
that
death statute of
Motors,
course,
ages
calculations. General
applied
ordinarily be
to deter-
state should
suit,
party
remains a
and Kansas has
damages),
(noting
mine
145 cmt. d
in protecting
an interest
the automobile man-
persons
state
are domiciled
where interested
verdict,
ufacturer
from an excessive
since
“greatest
in
typically
will
have
interest
that manufacturer does
within Kan-
business
determining
extent to which
shall
each
However,
sas’ borders.
General Motors also
recovery”). And
share in a tort
while no
Dakota,
business in
so there is
does
no
directly
Tennessee case has
addressed the
weight
compelling
give greater
reason
issue,
held in
other courts have
Kansas’
in this matter. We there-
interest
important
death
that the most
contact
eases
fore find
the domicile of the decedent
analysis
in
is the
the Restatement
domicile of
survivors,
his
than the center
rather
or her
In Air
decedent or his
heirs.
impor-
parties’ relationship,
the most
Disaster,
example,
Crash
residents of
application
tant contact in this
Re-
brought wrongful death
aris-
Vermont
claims
keeping
analysis.
statement
In
with this
ing
in
airplane
out of an
crash
occurred
finding, we
law of North Dako-
hold that the
court, ap-
Id. at 1107. The
Massachusetts.
ta, rather
should
than that of
test,
plying
significant relationship
the most
determining
for the Mac-
applied
determined that Vermont law should
claim.
Donalds’
since the decedents were domiciled in Ver-
argues
We note that
General
kin
mont and their next of
were
residents
relationship”
the “center of the
element
finding
Vermont. The court made this
de-
applica
factor in this
should be the dominant
spite
accident
the fact that the
occurred
test,
significant
tion of the most
and that
did
Massachusetts
defendant
apply.
thus that
law should
Massachusetts
business
both
and Ver-
support
argument,
General Motors
this
mont.
The court
Id. at 1112.
noted
cites this
Bowman v.
Court’s decision
strong
assuring
(6th
interest
Vermont had a
Koch
F.2d 1257
Cir.
Transfer
fully compensated
1988).
kin
held,
next of
applying
Bowman
Re
domiciliaries, while,
test,
deaths of its
an Ohio resident
statement’s
that where
hand,
a vehicle driven
an
significant
other
Massachusetts’ sole
was killed
Illinois
*9
We
that the fact that
the Air Crash
court also
case shows that the court found
note that
Disaster
based
on the fact that
was
its decision
Vermont
were
most of the decedents and
domi-
par-
the center of the
between the
the more
ciled and
in
was
com-
resided Vermont
Disaster,
F.Supp.
ties. Air Crash
at 1112.
pelling
id.
contact. See
However,
reading
opinion
of the
in that
a close
resident,
Liability
pro-
Act
and the
contact with Kansas Product
Act. The
Illinois
vides,
part:
in relevant
was that
the decedent was domiciled
Ohio
there and certain beneficiaries
domi-
injury-causing aspect
of the
When
live)
(but
there,
not
law
ciled
did
Illinois
manufacture,
was,
product
at
in
the time
Id. at 1262.
applied.
should be
regulatory
compliance
legislative
with
regulatory
or administrative
standards
While Bowman
may
support
lend some
safety
relating
design
per-
standards
or
position,
General Motors’
our decision here is
formance,
product
shall be deemed not
by
not controlled
that case. The Restate
by
design
perfor-
defective
reason of
or
approach
ment test is a fact-driven
that nec
proves
mance ...
claimant
a
unless the
essarily varies from case to
preponderance of the evidence that a rea-
Bowman decision was not based on an
analy
sonably prudent product seller could and
relationship”
sis of the “center
factor.
precautions.
would have taken additional
Bowman,
Moreover,
IV.
versity policies.
alleged
Plaintiffs
(and specifically
system)
vehicle
its brake
reasons,
foregoing
For the
we affirm the
defectively
was
maintained in Kansas
district court’s decision to admit evidence
University, contributing
alleged
to its
unrea-
relating
opening
to General Motors’
state-
sonably dangerous condition. It is clear that
ment remarks and its denial of General Mo-
traveling
David MacDonald was
on a Univer-
judgment
tors’ motion for
as a matter of law.
sity function. The vehicle
en
was
route to
However, because we have determined that
Georgia
trip origi-
from
where the
the law of
inappropriate
Kansas was
to de-
nated.
termine
the MacDonalds’
claim,
wrongful death
we reverse the district
In
pretrial
an amended
order submitted to
judgment
22,1992,
court’s
and remand for further
the district court on June
defendant
proceedings applying North Dakota
governs
law to maintained “that Kansas law
that issue.
disposition
trial and
case.”
majority opinion
1. The
majority opinion
concedes that "the de-
2. The
indicates that the vehicle
ceased was a resident
Kansas
the time of his
question
designed Michigan.
added.)
(Emphasis
death."
David had lived in
majority
during
for the vast
of the time
death,
years prior
the two
to his
and this was the
period of his adult life.
order,
February
residence of the
filed on
was Ver
pretrial
final
mont,
also
1995, any
legal
place
departure
issue was
which was
mention
month,
expected place
ill-
submit-
of return on the
Later
omitted.
*12
Disaster,
trip.
apply
plane
Dakota law to
fated
Air
399
a motion to
North
Crash
ted
wrongful F.Supp.
at 1112. These
facts in Air
measure of
on
essential
Disaster, supra,
“Kan-
Plaintiffs conceded that
Crash
form a clear basis for
death claim.
liability
distinguishing
and
it from
used to determine
the instant case. The
sas law will be
only
place
damages issues.”
similar circumstance was that the
certain
injury
“happen
death
of
and
was mere
agree with
parties
The
the district
therefore,
stance,” and,
Massachusetts law
Hataway McKinley,
v.
830 S.W.2d
that
clearly
apply.
did not
Id.
also
Vermont was
(Tenn.1992), adopts
law rule
as
conflicts of
relationship
in that
the center
case
of
approach
significant relationship”
the “most
significant
the most
had
contacts.
Restatement
of the
by plain-
In an affidavit
This court observed in Bowman v. Koch
death.
submitted
(6th
Cir.1988),
tiffs,
averred that
affirm
residency
many
the state
Corp.,
v. General
Patten
contacts,
most
was
state with the
other
(W.D.Okla.1987),
supports
F.Supp. 1500
also
significant relationship.
most
that Kansas has the
the conclusion
relationship
opinion
significant
of the
Patten
I am of the
that the “center
this ease.
relationship
relationship”
emphasized
contact
the center
test
important
is the most
question,
in a
pursu
the van
involved
the circumstances of this case
where
under
accident,
Oklahoma,
“was
titled
ant to the
Colorado
Conflict
case,
Bank,
regularly
by an
In this
Kansas was “the
owned
Oklahoma
Laws.3
resident,
by
majority
an
relationship,”
of the
used Oklahoma
Oklahoma
center
being
majority
posi
used
residents
concedes this. The
rested
and was
Oklahoma
Id.
entirely on
of the
time of the time of the accident.”
importance
almost
at the
tion
domicile,
relying
reasoning at 1505. The center
state of
on the
Boston,
great signifi
parties
was found to have
In re Air Crash Disaster at
(D.Mass.1975).
multistate
important
because of
F.Supp. 1106
It is
cance
scattered
Similarly,
involved.
in our
note that
the domicile
contacts
ease both
agree
majority opinion
important
contacts here.
would
I
injury
place
place
are less
of conduct
(W.D.Okla.1975)
(conceded
F.Supp.
majority
Corp.,
to be the
residence,
crash,
“homeplace”
(arising
plane
holding
of the
out
state of
of same
vehicle,
relationship”)
plane
place
the “center
the law of the
where the
was
unquestionably
of the most
place
the state
kept and maintained and
of business of
relationship.
significant
prevailed
defendant
over law of domicile
significant
deceased
under the
con
Furthermore,
North Dako-
the Kansas and
Cir.1976).
(10th
test), aff'd,
tacts
added: v. Clorox 926 F.2d Goins
(6th Cir.1991), a Ten- the court examined University graduation of Kansas. after have established domicile from