In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1979

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
644 F.2d 594 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a multi-state tort action where the states of the defendant's principal place of business and the place of misconduct have conflicting laws on punitive damages and equally significant interests, the law of the state where the injury occurred will be applied to resolve the conflict.

Facts:

McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC), a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, designed and manufactured a DC-10 airplane.
MDC's alleged misconduct in the design and manufacture of the plane occurred in California.
American Airlines (American), a Delaware corporation, operated the DC-10 and had its principal place of business in New York at the time of the crash.
American's alleged misconduct concerning maintenance of the aircraft occurred at its base in Oklahoma.
On May 25, 1979, American Airlines Flight 191 took off from Chicago, Illinois, bound for Los Angeles, California.
Shortly after takeoff, the aircraft lost an engine and crashed in the vicinity of the airport in Illinois.
The crash resulted in the deaths of all 271 people aboard the plane and two people on the ground.
The decedents were residents of numerous U.S. states and foreign countries.

Procedural Posture:

One hundred eighteen wrongful death actions were filed against McDonnell Douglas Corp. and American Airlines in federal district courts in Illinois, California, New York, Michigan, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and consolidated the cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings.
Both defendants moved the district court to strike all claims for punitive damages for failure to state a claim.
The district court granted the motion to strike punitive damages claims against American Airlines but denied the motion to strike claims against McDonnell Douglas Corp.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. appealed the district court's denial of its motion, and the plaintiffs appealed the district court's order granting American Airlines' motion.

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 wrongful death actions arising from an airplane crash involving multiple states, does the law of the state of injury regarding punitive damages apply when the states of the defendant's principal place of business and the place of misconduct have conflicting laws and equally significant interests in the issue?

Opinions:

Majority - Sprecher, J.

Yes, the law of the place of injury applies as a tie-breaker in a true conflict between interested states. The court found that punitive damages could not be recovered against either McDonnell Douglas or American Airlines. For each defendant, there was a true conflict between the law of its principal place of business and the law of the place of its alleged misconduct regarding punitive damages. For MDC, Missouri (principal place of business) allowed punitive damages, while California (place of misconduct) did not. For American, Oklahoma (place of misconduct) allowed them, while New York (principal place of business) did not. The court determined that in both instances, the competing states had equally strong and legitimate interests in applying their own law—either to deter wrongful conduct or to protect corporate defendants from excessive liability. Because neither state's interest was greater, creating a deadlock under both the 'most significant relationship' test (used by Illinois, New York, Michigan) and the 'comparative impairment' test (used by California), the court resolved the conflict by applying the law of the place of injury, Illinois. Since Illinois has strong interests in both promoting air safety and protecting the aviation industry, and its law disallows punitive damages in wrongful death actions, that law was applied to deny punitive damage claims against both defendants. The court also held that denying punitive damages does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Concurring - Cudahy, J.

The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's result and analysis but expresses skepticism about the underlying premise that a state (like Missouri) has a strong interest in imposing punitive damages on one of its own major corporations for torts committed elsewhere that injure non-residents. Calling this assumption an act of 'unusual altruism,' the opinion nevertheless accepts it for the sake of the argument. Judge Cudahy concludes by emphasizing that the complexity and interstate nature of air disasters underscore the profound need for a uniform federal law to govern tort liability in this area.

Analysis:

This case establishes a significant precedential framework for resolving 'true conflicts' in choice-of-law analysis, particularly in mass tort litigation. It introduces the law of the place of injury as a principled tie-breaker when modern interest-based analyses (like 'most significant relationship' and 'comparative impairment') result in a deadlock between states with equally compelling interests. By doing so, the decision provides a degree of predictability and certainty in complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes where the primary states' policies are in direct opposition. The court’s endorsement of 'depecage'—analyzing each legal issue separately—also reinforces a nuanced approach to conflicts problems, moving away from applying one state's law to all aspects of a case. Finally, the opinion serves as a prominent judicial call for federal legislation to create a uniform standard of liability for the aviation industry, highlighting the inadequacy of state-by-state adjudication for national-scale disasters.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1979 (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"