Phillips v. General Motors Corp.
298 Mont. 438, 995 P.2d 1002, 2000 MT 55 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In tort actions involving a conflict of laws, Montana applies the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to determine which state's substantive law governs the dispute.
Facts:
- The vehicle at issue was a 1985 Chevrolet pickup designed, manufactured, and distributed by General Motors.
- General Motors originally sold the pickup truck in North Carolina.
- In February 1995, Darrell Byrd purchased the used pickup truck in North Carolina, supplying a North Carolina address at the time.
- At the time of the accident, Darrell Byrd and his family (Angela, Timothy, and Samuel) were residents and domiciliaries of Montana.
- On December 22, 1997, the Byrd family was driving the pickup truck from their home in Montana to North Carolina for Christmas vacation.
- The pickup truck collided with a semi-tractor trailer on Interstate 70 near Russell, Kansas.
- Following the collision, a fire ensued in the pickup truck.
- Darrell, Angela, and Timothy Byrd died in the accident, and Samuel Byrd sustained significant personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin Phillips, as legal guardian and personal representative for the Byrd family, filed a product liability, personal injury, and wrongful death action against General Motors Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Montana.
- During the proceedings, a dispute arose between the parties as to which state's substantive law should govern the claims.
- Because Montana law on this issue was unsettled, the U.S. District Court certified three questions of law to the Supreme Court of Montana for a definitive ruling on the state's choice-of-law rules in tort cases.
- The Supreme Court of Montana accepted the certified questions from the federal 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:
In a personal injury and wrongful death action where the plaintiffs were Montana domiciliaries, the injury occurred in Kansas, and the product was purchased in North Carolina, does Montana apply the law of the state with the 'most significant relationship' to the occurrence and the parties, rather than the traditional 'place of injury' rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Regnier
Yes, in tort actions, Montana will follow the 'most significant relationship' test, and under the facts of this case, Montana law applies. The traditional rule of 'lex loci delicti' (law of the place of injury) is rigid, outdated, and often leads to the application of law from a state with little interest in the dispute. Adopting the Restatement (Second) approach aligns Montana tort law with its contract law and the modern majority of jurisdictions. Applying the test, the court found that Montana, as the domicile of the victims, has the most significant interest in providing compensation for its residents and deterring the manufacture and sale of defective products that harm them. Kansas's connection as the fortuitous site of the accident is weak, as its laws are not intended to regulate conduct or protect non-residents injured by products purchased elsewhere. Similarly, the interests of North Carolina (place of purchase) and Michigan (putative place of manufacture) are less significant than Montana's strong policy interest in protecting its citizens.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Montana jurisprudence, formally abandoning the antiquated 'lex loci delicti' rule in favor of the modern, flexible 'most significant relationship' test for tort cases. This aligns Montana with the vast majority of states and provides a policy-based framework for resolving complex choice-of-law questions. By prioritizing the interests of the state where the victims are domiciled over the fortuitous location of the injury, the ruling significantly impacts multi-state product liability litigation involving mobile goods like vehicles. The case establishes a clear precedent that Montana courts will conduct a deep analysis of state policies rather than applying a simplistic, geographically-based rule.
