Lexplug logoLexplug

Brickner v. Gooden

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1974 OK 91, 1974 Okla. LEXIS 382, 525 P.2d 632 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In tort actions, the rights and liabilities of the parties are determined by the law of the state which has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, replacing the doctrine of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the injury).


Facts:

  • All parties, both the petitioner and the respondents, were residents of Oklahoma at all relevant times.
  • The petitioner owned and operated an aircraft that was registered and hangared in Oklahoma.
  • The respondents were passengers on the petitioner's aircraft for a trip that originated in Oklahoma and was scheduled to end in Oklahoma.
  • The aircraft crashed near Mexico City, Republic of Mexico.
  • The respondents sustained personal injuries as a result of the crash.
  • The negligence alleged by the respondents occurred entirely within the Republic of Mexico.

Procedural Posture:

  • Respondents filed three separate personal injury actions against the petitioner in an Oklahoma trial court.
  • In the trial court, the parties disputed whether the substantive law of Oklahoma or the Republic of Mexico should govern the case.
  • The trial court held that Oklahoma law would apply because Oklahoma had the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties.
  • Upon petitioner's motion, the trial court certified its interlocutory order for review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to resolve the choice-of-law question.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a multi-state tort action, does the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties determine their substantive rights and liabilities, thereby replacing the traditional rule of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the injury)?


Opinions:

Majority - Irwin, J.

Yes, in a multi-state tort action, the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties determines their substantive rights and liabilities. The court abandons the rigid and mechanical rule of lex loci delicti, which automatically applied the law of the place where the injury occurred. The court reasoned that there has been a significant trend in American jurisprudence away from the old rule due to its often arbitrary results. Adopting the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 provides a more flexible and rational approach. In this case, although the injury occurred in Mexico, Oklahoma has the most significant relationship because all parties are Oklahoma domiciliaries, the aircraft was based in Oklahoma, and the passenger-carrier relationship was centered in Oklahoma where the trip began and was to end.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant modernization of Oklahoma's choice-of-law doctrine for torts, aligning it with the majority of jurisdictions that have abandoned the rigid lex loci delicti rule. By adopting the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second), the court shifted from a territorial, place-of-injury-focused approach to a policy-based analysis that considers the interests of the states and the parties. This change provides more just outcomes in cases where the location of the injury is fortuitous, but it also introduces greater uncertainty and requires a more complex, fact-intensive analysis by trial courts in future multi-state tort cases.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Brickner v. Gooden (1974) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Brickner v. Gooden