Reich v. Purcell
67 Cal. 2d 551, 63 Cal. Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In tort actions involving a conflict of laws, the applicable law is not determined by the rigid rule of the place of the wrong (lex loci delicti), but rather by assessing the governmental interests of the involved states and applying the law of the state with the greatest interest in the specific issue being decided.
Facts:
- Defendant Joseph Purcell, a resident of California, was driving his automobile in Missouri while en route to a vacation in Illinois.
- The Reich family, residents of Ohio, were traveling through Missouri on their way to California, where they were contemplating moving.
- Purcell's automobile collided head-on with the automobile driven by Mrs. Reich in Missouri.
- Mrs. Reich and her son, Jay Reich, were killed in the collision; another son, Jeffry Reich, was injured.
- At the time of the accident, Missouri law limited wrongful death damages to a maximum of $25,000.
- Neither Ohio, the plaintiffs' home state, nor California, the defendant's home state, placed a limit on damages recoverable in wrongful death actions.
- After the accident, the surviving plaintiffs, Lee Reich and Jeffry Reich, became permanent residents of California.
- The estates for the deceased, Mrs. Reich and Jay Reich, were being administered in Ohio.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee Reich and Jeffry Reich (plaintiffs) filed a wrongful death action against Joseph Purcell (defendant) in a California superior court (trial court).
- The parties stipulated that judgment would be entered for either $55,000 or $25,000 for the death of Mrs. Reich, contingent on the court's choice-of-law ruling.
- The trial court ruled that Missouri law, including its $25,000 damages limitation, applied because the accident occurred in Missouri.
- The trial court entered a final judgment consistent with its ruling, limiting the damages for Mrs. Reich's death.
- The plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 wrongful death action brought in California involving a California defendant and Ohio plaintiffs, does Missouri's statutory limit on damages apply when the fatal automobile accident occurred in Missouri?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C. J.
No. The Missouri statutory limitation on damages does not apply because the interests of Ohio and California in the issue of compensation outweigh Missouri's interest. The court abandoned the traditional choice-of-law rule, lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong), in favor of a governmental interest analysis. The court reasoned that the issue in question was the amount of compensation for survivors, not the standard of conduct for drivers. Missouri's interest in limiting damages is primarily to protect Missouri defendants from excessive financial burdens, an interest not implicated here since the defendant is a Californian. Conversely, Ohio has a significant interest in ensuring its residents receive full compensation. California, as the defendant's domicile and the forum state, has no interest in applying a damages cap that conflicts with its own policy of unlimited recovery. Therefore, applying the law of the interested states (Ohio and California) over the law of the fortuitous place of the accident (Missouri) serves the ends of justice and state policy.
Analysis:
This case marks a pivotal shift in American choice-of-law jurisprudence, as the California Supreme Court explicitly abandoned the rigid, territorial First Restatement rule of lex loci delicti in tort cases. By adopting a governmental interest analysis, the court introduced a more flexible, policy-based approach that requires an issue-by-issue evaluation of the competing states' interests. This decision significantly influenced other jurisdictions to move away from traditional, vested-rights theories toward modern, functional analyses, though it also introduced greater unpredictability into choice-of-law determinations.
Unlock the full brief for Reich v. Purcell