Folk v. York-Shipley, Inc.
239 A.2d 236, 1968 Del. LEXIS 205 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action, the substantive law of the state where the physical injury occurred governs the rights of the parties, including derivative claims like loss of consortium. Delaware courts will apply only the internal law of that state and will not apply the doctrine of renvoi, which would consider the other state's choice-of-law rules.
Facts:
- Donna G. Folk and Robert P. Folk were a married couple domiciled in Delaware.
- York-Shipley, Inc. was a Delaware corporation.
- A tractor-trailer driven by Robert P. Folk was involved in a head-on collision with a tractor-trailer owned by York-Shipley and driven by its employee.
- The collision occurred in Pennsylvania.
- As a result of the collision, Robert P. Folk suffered serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna G. Folk and her husband, Robert P. Folk, filed a lawsuit against York-Shipley, Inc. in the Superior Court of Delaware.
- The complaint included a cause of action for Mrs. Folk for loss of her husband's consortium.
- The Superior Court, a court of first instance, granted partial summary judgment against Donna G. Folk, dismissing her claim for loss of consortium.
- Donna G. Folk appealed the lower court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 the law of the state where a tortious injury occurred (Pennsylvania), rather than the law of the plaintiffs' marital domicile (Delaware), govern a wife's derivative claim for loss of consortium when the two states have conflicting laws on the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Wolcott, Chief Justice
Yes. The substantive law of the state where the tortious injury occurred governs the claim for loss of consortium. A wife's action for loss of consortium is a tort claim that is derivative of her husband's personal injury claim, meaning it springs into being at the time and place of the husband's injury. The court reasoned that the injury to the marriage was the physical injury to the husband in Pennsylvania, and the subsequent loss of companionship experienced in Delaware is merely the resulting damage, not a new injury. Therefore, under Delaware's choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti, Pennsylvania's substantive law, which denies a wife a cause of action for loss of consortium, must apply. The court rejected the argument that this was a matter of family law governed by the marital domicile, and also explicitly rejected the doctrine of renvoi, refusing to consider Pennsylvania's own choice-of-law rules which might have pointed back to Delaware law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Delaware's adherence to the traditional, territorial-based choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti (law of the place of the wrong) for tort cases. By rejecting both a characterization of the claim as 'family law' and the application of the doctrine of renvoi, the court signaled a preference for predictability over the more flexible 'most significant contacts' approach. This ruling clarifies that derivative claims like loss of consortium are inextricably linked to the underlying tort and will be governed by the law of the place where the primary physical injury occurred, not the law of the parties' domicile where the consequential damages are felt.
