Nierman v. Hyatt Corp.
441 Mass. 693 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a choice-of-law analysis for statutes of limitations, the forum state will not apply its own longer statute if it has no substantial interest in the claim and another state has a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.
Facts:
- Sylvia and Edward Nierman, residents of Massachusetts, made reservations through Massachusetts travel agents to stay at a Hyatt Regency hotel in Texas.
- On January 15, 1994, while at the Hyatt Regency DFW in Texas, Sylvia Nierman was injured when she was knocked to the ground by a transport cart.
- The Niermans allege the cart, operated by a Hyatt employee, accelerated negligently before Mrs. Nierman was safely seated.
- Hyatt Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.
- Hyatt manages at least one hotel in Massachusetts and regularly solicits business within the state.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 15, 1997, the Niermans (plaintiffs) filed a negligence action against Hyatt Corporation (defendant) in the Newton Division of the Massachusetts District Court.
- The trial court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Hyatt, ruling the claim was barred by the two-year Texas statute of limitations.
- The Appellate Division of the District Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Massachusetts Appeals Court (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the lower courts, concluding that the three-year Massachusetts statute of limitations controlled the claim.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court) granted Hyatt's application for further appellate review.
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 Texas two-year statute of limitations, rather than the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations, apply to a personal injury claim filed in Massachusetts by Massachusetts residents for an injury that occurred in Texas?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
Yes. The Texas two-year statute of limitations applies to this claim. Under the functional choice-of-law approach from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142, a forum should not apply its own statute of limitations if it lacks a substantial interest and another state has a more significant relationship to the claim. Here, Texas has the more significant relationship because the injury, the alleged negligence, the hotel, and the employee were all located there. Although Massachusetts has a general interest in its residents being compensated, it does not have a substantial interest in the timeliness of this specific action that outweighs Texas's dominant interest in balancing the rights of parties for events occurring within its borders. Therefore, the shorter Texas statute of limitations bars the Niermans' claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Massachusetts's adoption of the modern, functional approach to choice-of-law questions regarding statutes of limitations, moving away from the traditional rule that such statutes are merely procedural. It establishes that a plaintiff's residence in the forum state is not, by itself, a 'substantial interest' sufficient to justify applying the forum's longer statute of limitations. The ruling emphasizes that courts must analyze which state has the more significant relationship to the specific issue of timeliness, thereby discouraging forum shopping for more favorable limitation periods.
