Raskin Ex Rel. Raskin v. Allison
2002 Kan. App. LEXIS 989, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1240, 57 P.3d 30 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kansas law, the choice-of-law doctrine of lex loci delicti (the law of the place where the tort occurred) governs personal injury actions, even when all parties are Kansas residents and the injury occurred in a foreign country whose laws are less favorable to the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Kaley Raskin and Jenna Tumbaugh, both minors and residents of Kansas, were on vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
- Chad Leathers, also a minor and a resident of Kansas, was also in Cabo San Lucas.
- Leathers was operating a water craft in the ocean waters off Cabo San Lucas.
- The water craft operated by Leathers collided with the water craft occupied by Raskin and Tumbaugh.
- As a result of the collision, Raskin and Tumbaugh sustained personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Kaley Raskin and Jenna Tumbaugh sued Ken and Karen Allison, on behalf of their minor son Chad Leathers, in a Kansas trial court.
- The plaintiffs' claims were based on theories of negligence and negligent entrustment.
- The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the choice-of-law question, arguing Mexican law should apply.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the substantive law of Mexico would govern the claims.
- The plaintiffs then sought and were granted an interlocutory appeal to have an appellate court review the trial court's choice-of-law ruling before the case proceeded further.
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 Kansas choice-of-law rule, lex loci delicti, require applying the substantive law of Mexico to a personal injury claim between Kansas residents when the injury occurred in Mexico?
Opinions:
Majority - Paddock, J.
Yes, the rule of lex loci delicti requires applying the substantive law of Mexico. Kansas strictly adheres to the principle that the law of the state where the tort occurred should apply. This rule holds even when all parties are residents of Kansas and when the law of the place of injury is less favorable to the plaintiffs. The court rejected the argument that this rule does not apply to torts occurring in foreign countries, noting that Kansas follows traditional choice-of-law principles. Furthermore, the public policy exception to this rule is very narrow and is not triggered simply because another jurisdiction's laws limit damages or impose higher burdens of proof; the foreign law must violate a 'strong public policy' that is thoroughly and definitively established, which Mexico's law does not.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Kansas's rigid adherence to the traditional lex loci delicti rule in tort cases, explicitly extending its application to injuries occurring in foreign countries. The court strongly signals that it will not carve out exceptions based on the shared residency of the parties or the perceived unfairness of foreign laws, such as damage caps. This reinforces the predictability of the rule but limits judicial flexibility, confirming that the location of the injury is the paramount factor in Kansas choice-of-law analysis for torts.
