PV Ex Rel. TV v. Camp Jaycee
2008 N.J. LEXIS 1694, 197 N.J. 132, 962 A.2d 453 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In tort cases involving a conflict of laws, the court will apply the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which presumes the law of the state of injury applies unless another state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties.
Facts:
- New Jersey Camp Jaycee, Inc. (Camp Jaycee) is a non-profit corporation organized in New Jersey.
- Camp Jaycee's primary charitable mission, operating a summer program for mentally challenged individuals, is carried out at a campsite in Effort, Pennsylvania.
- P.V., a twenty-one-year-old New Jersey resident with Down syndrome, had attended the Pennsylvania camp for at least three consecutive summers.
- In August 2003, while at the camp in Pennsylvania, P.V. was sexually assaulted by another camper.
- As a result of the assault, P.V. sustained injuries that required medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- P.V.’s parents, as guardians, sued Camp Jaycee in a New Jersey trial court for personal injury based on negligent supervision.
- Camp Jaycee filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting immunity from suit under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Camp Jaycee.
- P.V.'s parents appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Pennsylvania law, which has abrogated charitable immunity, should govern the case.
- Camp Jaycee petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, for certification, which the court granted.
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 New Jersey's charitable immunity statute apply to a tort committed in Pennsylvania by a New Jersey-based charity against a New Jersey resident, when Pennsylvania law does not recognize charitable immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Long
No. New Jersey's charitable immunity statute does not apply because Pennsylvania, the state where the tort occurred, has the most significant relationship to the issue. The court officially adopts the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for tort cases. The analysis begins with the section 146 presumption that the law of the state where the injury occurred—Pennsylvania—applies. To overcome this, New Jersey must have a 'more significant relationship.' The court weighs the section 145 contacts: the injury occurred in Pennsylvania, the alleged negligent supervision occurred in Pennsylvania, the parties' relationship was centered in Pennsylvania, and the camp's principal charitable business was in Pennsylvania. The only contact with New Jersey is that both parties are domiciliaries. The court also analyzes the section 6 principles, concluding that Pennsylvania has a strong conduct-regulating interest in ensuring safety within its borders, which is not merely a post-event loss-allocation rule. Applying New Jersey law would frustrate Pennsylvania's policy of deterrence, while applying Pennsylvania law would not significantly harm New Jersey's ability to protect charities operating within its own borders. Therefore, the presumption in favor of Pennsylvania law is not overcome.
Dissenting - Justice Hoens
Yes. New Jersey's charitable immunity statute should apply because New Jersey has the greatest governmental interest in the dispute. The majority errs by formally adopting the 'most significant relationship' test and abandoning New Jersey's more nuanced 'governmental interest' analysis. Under a proper governmental interest analysis, the focus should be on the competing state policies. New Jersey has a repeatedly affirmed, strong public policy of protecting the assets of its charitable institutions, a policy that is directly implicated here as both parties are New Jersey domiciliaries. Applying New Jersey law furthers this strong legislative mandate. In contrast, Pennsylvania's interest is attenuated; its policy is primarily to compensate its own citizens, which P.V. is not, and its interest in regulating conduct is not significantly hampered by applying New Jersey law to a dispute between two New Jersey parties. Applying Pennsylvania law thwarts the express will of the New Jersey legislature to protect its own charities.
Analysis:
This case officially solidifies New Jersey's adoption of the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for tort cases, moving away from a more amorphous 'governmental interest' analysis. The decision establishes a clear, structured framework that begins with the presumption of applying the law of the place of injury. It significantly curtails the extraterritorial application of forum-state immunity statutes, signaling that entities choosing to operate in another state cannot expect their home state's protections to follow them, especially when the other state has a strong interest in regulating conduct within its borders.
