Ferren v. General Motors Corp.
1993 N.H. LEXIS 85, 137 N.H. 423, 628 A.2d 265 (1993)
Rule of Law:
Under the choice-influencing considerations, the substantive law of the state where an employment relationship was established and performed governs legal disputes arising from that employment, even if the employee subsequently moves to and discovers an injury in a different forum state.
Facts:
- From 1961 to 1974, Dennis Ferren worked at a General Motors Corporation (GMC) plant located in Olathe, Kansas.
- During this employment, Mr. Ferren was involved in the battery-making process and was exposed to lead dust.
- The employment contract and relationship between Ferren and GMC arose and was carried out entirely within Kansas.
- In 1974, the Ferrens moved to New Hampshire.
- In September 1989, fifteen years after leaving GMC, Mr. Ferren was diagnosed with lead poisoning and other diseases.
- Mr. Ferren claims GMC misrepresented and concealed the consequences of the lead exposure.
- Judith Ferren claims loss of consortium resulting from her husband's illness.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ferrens filed a lawsuit against GMC in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire certified three questions of law regarding choice of law and workers' compensation applicability to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Hampshire substantive law govern a tort action brought by New Hampshire residents against a corporation for occupational injuries incurred exclusively during previous employment in Kansas?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Horton
No. The court held that the substantive law of Kansas governs this action because the employment relationship and the injury-causing events occurred entirely within that state. In applying the five 'choice-influencing considerations' from Clark v. Clark, the court determined that Kansas law prevailed. First, regarding 'predictability of results,' the court reasoned that both parties to the employment contract in Kansas would reasonably expect Kansas law to govern their relationship. Second, regarding 'maintenance of reasonable orderliness,' the court found that New Hampshire had no substantial connection to the employment facts; a post-occurrence move to the state is insufficient to warrant applying forum law. While the 'simplification of the judicial task' might favor New Hampshire law, it did not outweigh the other factors. Regarding the 'forum's governmental interests,' the court noted that both states have workers' compensation schemes with similar policy goals, so applying Kansas law does not contravene New Hampshire policy. finally, regarding the 'sounder rule of law,' the court refused to invalidate the Kansas statutory scheme (which included a statute of repose barring the claim) simply because New Hampshire's discovery rule was more generous, given that no underlying facts occurred in New Hampshire.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the conflict of laws principle that a plaintiff's post-event change of residence is generally insufficient to shift the choice of law to the new forum, particularly in cases rooted in a contractual or employment relationship. By rigorously applying the Clark factors, the court prioritized the 'justifiable expectations' of the parties at the time of the underlying events over the current residency of the plaintiff. The ruling effectively prevents forum shopping where a plaintiff might move to a jurisdiction with a more favorable statute of limitations or discovery rule to revive a claim that would be time-barred in the state where the injury occurred.
