Foster v. Leggett
484 S.W.2d 827, 1972 Ky. LEXIS 149 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a tort action involves parties with significant contacts to Kentucky, Kentucky courts will apply Kentucky law, even if another state might have more significant contacts, thus reaffirming a departure from the strict lex loci delicti rule.
Facts:
- Appellant's decedent, Mrs. Stringer, was a lifelong resident of Greenup County, Kentucky.
- Appellee, Marzette, was legally domiciled in Portsmouth, Ohio, and had lived there for several years.
- Marzette and Mrs. Stringer both worked for the C & O Railroad in Russell, Greenup County, Kentucky, in the same office for several years, and Marzette often stayed in a rented room at the Russell Y.M.C.A. two nights a week.
- Marzette and Mrs. Stringer had been dating for several months and planned a trip from Kentucky to Columbus, Ohio, for business, shopping, dinner, and entertainment, intending to return to Russell the same day.
- On September 9, 1967, pursuant to this plan, Marzette picked up Mrs. Stringer at her Kentucky home, and they began their journey to Columbus, Ohio.
- A short distance north of Portsmouth, Ohio, Marzette, while attempting to pass a vehicle on a wet highway, lost control of his automobile, crossed a median, and collided with a southbound vehicle.
- Mrs. Stringer was killed in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Stringer's administratrix (appellant), filed suit in the Greenup County Circuit Court (trial court) against Marzette for wrongful death and burial expenses, alleging both ordinary and gross negligence.
- Marzette (appellee) answered the suit, pleading section 4515.02 of the Ohio Revised Code, commonly known as the Guest Statute, as a defense.
- Both Mrs. Stringer's administratrix and Marzette filed motions for summary judgment.
- The Greenup County Circuit Court overruled Mrs. Stringer's administratrix's motion for summary judgment.
- The Greenup County Circuit Court sustained Marzette's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, ruling that Ohio's Guest Statute applied and there was no evidence of wilful or wanton misconduct on Marzette's part.
- Mrs. Stringer's administratrix, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
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 Kentucky law or Ohio law apply to determine liability in a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident in Ohio, when the decedent was a lifelong Kentucky resident and the Ohio-domiciled defendant had significant employment and social ties to Kentucky?
Opinions:
Majority - C. R. Walden, Special Commissioner
Yes, Kentucky law applies. The court reaffirms its position from Wessling v. Paris, which substantially departed from the age-old lex loci delicti rule in favor of examining the true relationship of the parties. The court emphasizes that when it has jurisdiction over the parties, its primary responsibility is to follow its own substantive law, which should not be displaced without valid reasons. In this case, there were numerous and significant contacts with Kentucky, including the decedent being a lifelong resident, the appellee's employment and most social relationships being in Kentucky, his regular use of a rented room in Kentucky, and the fatal journey beginning and intending to conclude in Kentucky. These contacts are deemed sufficient to justify applying Kentucky law, rather than displacing it with Ohio's Guest Statute, even if Ohio were argued to have 'more significant contacts.' The court clarifies that 'significant contacts' with Kentucky are sufficient, not necessarily the 'most significant contacts' as might be suggested by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.
Dissenting - Osborne, Judge
No, Ohio law should apply. Judge Osborne respectfully dissents for the reasons shown in his previous dissenting opinion in Wessling v. Paris, which consistently advocated for the uniform application of the law of the place where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti) without exception.
Dissenting - Reed, Judge
No, Ohio law should apply. While acknowledging the modern trend away from strict lex loci delicti, Judge Reed argues that the majority pushes the 'significant contacts' principle too far, sacrificing simplicity and predictability. He posits that the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Section 175, should guide the analysis, which states that the local law of the state where the injury occurred should control unless another state has a more significant relationship. In this case, Ohio's Guest Statute reflects its public policy to protect hosts from gratuitous guest claims, especially for its domiciled residents driving on its highways. The defendant was an Ohio resident, and the accident occurred in Ohio. Reed expresses concern that the majority's decision effectively makes Kentucky a forum that will apply its own law on 'any excuse whatever,' disregarding the policy considerations of sister states and creating inconsistency with prior rulings like Arnett v. Thompson.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strengthens Kentucky's position on choice of law in tort cases, firmly moving away from the traditional lex loci delicti rule. It establishes a forum-favoring approach where 'significant contacts' with Kentucky are sufficient to apply Kentucky law, even if another state might have 'more significant contacts' under a strict 'most significant relationship' test. This approach may lead to less predictability for parties involved in multi-state torts, as the forum court may prioritize its own law based on broader connections. Future cases will likely continue to grapple with what constitutes 'significant' contacts and how this test interacts with the policies of other states.
