Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
65 N.Y. 189 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action, when the parties share a common domicile, the loss-allocation rules of that domicile apply. In cases with parties from different domiciles, the law of the place of the tort applies unless displacing it will advance the substantive law purposes of another interested jurisdiction without impairing the multistate system.
Facts:
- In 1978, plaintiffs Richard and Margaret Schultz and their sons, Richard and Christopher, were residents of Emerson, New Jersey.
- Defendant Boy Scouts of America, Inc. had its national headquarters in New Jersey at that time, making it a New Jersey domiciliary.
- Defendant Brothers of the Poor of St. Francis, Inc. (Franciscan Brothers), an Ohio corporation, supplied teachers to the boys' school in New Jersey.
- One of these teachers, Brother Edmund Coakeley, also served as the leader of the boys' Boy Scout troop.
- During scout trips in 1978 to a Boy Scout camp in upstate New York, Coakeley sexually abused both Richard and Christopher Schultz.
- Coakeley allegedly continued to abuse Christopher after they returned to New Jersey.
- On May 29, 1979, Christopher Schultz committed suicide in New Jersey as a result of the psychological distress from the abuse.
- Plaintiffs allege that both defendant organizations negligently hired and supervised Coakeley, having had notice of his prior misconduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard E. and Margaret Schultz sued the Boy Scouts of America and the Brothers of the Poor of St. Francis in a New York trial court (Special Term).
- In a separate action, plaintiffs sued the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark in New Jersey, where their claims were dismissed based on that state's charitable immunity statute.
- In the New York case, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing New Jersey law applied and that the prior New Jersey judgment collaterally estopped the plaintiffs.
- The New York trial court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the intermediate appellate court (the Appellate Division), which affirmed the dismissal.
- The plaintiffs then appealed to the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals.
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, which bars the plaintiffs' claims, govern a tort action brought in New York where some of the tortious conduct occurred in New York, but the plaintiffs and one key defendant are New Jersey domiciliaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
Yes. New Jersey's charitable immunity law applies to bar the plaintiffs' claims against both defendants. The court employs an interest analysis approach, distinguishing between conduct-regulating rules and loss-allocating rules. Charitable immunity is a loss-allocating rule. In the claim against the Boy Scouts, the parties share a common domicile (New Jersey). The state of common domicile has the paramount interest in the application of its loss-allocation rules, as the parties have chosen to accept both the benefits and burdens of that jurisdiction's laws. New York's interest as the locus of the tort is minimal in a case involving a loss-allocating rule and non-resident parties. For the claim against the Franciscan Brothers (an Ohio domiciliary), the court applies the third Neumeier rule for split-domicile cases. It concludes that applying New Jersey law advances that state's interests without frustrating New York's minimal interests, promoting certainty and reducing forum-shopping. Finally, New York's public policy against charitable immunity is not strong enough to preclude enforcement of New Jersey's law because the case lacks sufficient contacts with New York.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No. New York's law, which does not grant charitable immunity, should apply. The majority overstates New Jersey's interest and understates New York's. New Jersey's interest is diminished because neither defendant is currently a resident of that state (Boy Scouts moved to Texas, Franciscan Brothers are from Ohio). New York has a paramount interest as the locus of the tort in deterring heinous conduct like the sexual abuse of children within its borders and in compensating victims. New York's rule of nonimmunity serves a conduct-regulating (deterrent) purpose, not just a loss-allocating one. Furthermore, applying New Jersey's 'anachronistic' and 'senseless' charitable immunity law is repugnant to New York's strong public policy, and the court should refuse to enforce it.
Analysis:
This case solidifies New York's adoption of the 'interest analysis' approach for choice-of-law issues in torts, cementing the distinction between conduct-regulating and loss-allocating rules. It establishes a strong precedent for applying the law of the parties' common domicile to loss-allocation issues, even in a 'reverse-Babcock' scenario where New York is the locus of the tort but not the domicile. This decision enhances predictability in choice-of-law conflicts by prioritizing domiciliary interests over the interests of the place of injury for post-event remedial rules like immunity or damage caps.
