Simon v. United States
805 N.E.2d 798, 2004 Ind. LEXIS 315, 2004 WL 628232 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's choice-of-law analysis for torts, the law of the place of the tort (lex loci delicti) is presumed to apply. However, if the place of the tort is insignificant to the legal action, the court will instead apply the substantive law of the state with the most significant relationship, which is typically the state where the injury-causing conduct occurred.
Facts:
- A private aircraft departed from Pennsylvania, with a pilot from New Jersey and passengers from Pennsylvania and Georgia.
- The plane was owned by a Delaware subsidiary of a Pennsylvania corporation and was hangared in Pennsylvania.
- The pilot, relying on a navigational chart published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Washington, D.C., planned a landing approach for an airport in Somerset, Kentucky.
- The chart incorrectly showed that an instrument landing system at the Somerset airport was operational when it had been out of service for years.
- FAA air traffic controllers based in Indianapolis, Indiana, gave the pilot clearance for the out-of-service approach.
- While attempting to land in Kentucky, the aircraft struck a radio tower and crashed, resulting in the deaths of all occupants.
Procedural Posture:
- The estates of individuals killed in the crash filed four wrongful death complaints against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- Two of the four cases settled.
- The remaining two cases were the subject of an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit, uncertain about Indiana's choice-of-law rules, certified two questions of law to the Indiana Supreme Court for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Indiana's choice-of-law rules for torts, when the place of the injury is an insignificant contact, does the court prioritize the place where the negligent conduct occurred over other factors to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the action?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, C.J.
Yes. When the place of injury is insignificant, Indiana's choice-of-law analysis prioritizes the place where the injury-causing conduct occurred to determine which state has the most significant relationship to the case. The court first determined that a true conflict of law exists between Indiana and the District of Columbia because Indiana rejects the doctrine of dépeçage (applying different states' laws to different issues within a single claim) and does not engage in the policy-based 'governmental interest' analysis used by D.C. The court then applied Indiana's two-step choice-of-law test from Hubbard Mfg. Co. v. Greeson. The first step, applying the rule of lex loci delicti, points to Kentucky law because the crash and deaths (the last event necessary for liability) occurred there. However, the court found the place of the tort to be insignificant because the crash was fortuitous, none of the parties were from Kentucky, and the plane could have crashed anywhere. Proceeding to the second step, the court weighed the contacts to find the state with the most significant relationship. It identified the place of the conduct causing injury as the most important factor, reasoning that individuals should be governed by the laws of the state in which they act. Since the negligent conduct occurred in Indiana (air traffic control) and D.C. (chart publication), and the Indiana conduct was more proximate to the harm, Indiana has the more significant relationship. Therefore, Indiana substantive law applies.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Indiana's modified lex loci delicti approach to choice of law in tort cases, reaffirming the framework from Hubbard. By explicitly rejecting dépeçage and the broader, more flexible Restatement (Second) approach involving policy analysis, the court prioritized predictability and doctrinal stability. The ruling establishes that when the place of injury is merely fortuitous, the place of the negligent conduct becomes the dispositive factor, providing a clearer rule than a vague 'center of gravity' test. This gives future courts and litigants a more concrete hierarchy for analyzing multi-state torts, limiting judicial discretion and aiming for more consistent outcomes.
