12 N.Y.2d p. 482, 240 N.Y.S.2d p. 750, 191 N.E.2d p. 284
On September 16, 1960, Georgia Babcock, a resident of Rochester, New York, along with her friends Mr. and Mrs. William Jackson, also Rochester residents, departed from Rochester in William Jackson's automobile for a weekend trip to Canada, with Babcock traveling as a guest passenger.1 Several hours later, while driving in the Province of Ontario, Jackson lost control of the vehicle, which left the highway and struck an adjacent stone wall, resulting in serious injuries to Babcock.2
After returning to New York, Babcock commenced an action against Jackson alleging negligence in the operation of the automobile.3 Following Jackson's death, his executrix was substituted as the defendant.4 At the time of the accident, Ontario law included a statute providing that the owner or driver of a motor vehicle is not liable for loss or damage resulting from bodily injury to a passenger being carried in the vehicle, except for vehicles operated in the business of carrying passengers for compensation.5
The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Ontario law governed and barred recovery.6 The Special Term granted the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal without opinion.7
Whether the law of the place of the tort invariably governs the availability of relief for the tort?8
The traditional choice of law rule is embodied in the original Restatement of Conflict of Laws.9 The substantive rights and liabilities arising out of a tortious occurrence are determinable by the law of the place of the tort.10 This rule has been discredited because it fails to take account of underlying policy considerations.11 It ignores the interest which jurisdictions other than that where the tort occurred may have in the resolution of particular issues.12
No. The established facts show that Georgia Babcock and the Jacksons were all residents of Rochester, New York.13 They departed from that city in an automobile garaged, licensed and insured in New York for a trip that began and was to end there.14 Several hours later the accident occurred in Ontario when the vehicle struck a stone wall causing serious injuries to Babcock as guest passenger.15 Upon her return to New York she commenced the action alleging negligence.16 After the defendant's death his executrix was substituted.17 The traditional rule ignores the interest which jurisdictions other than that where the tort occurred may have in the resolution of particular issues. It produces unjust and anomalous results when applied to these facts.18 Ontario's sole relationship with the occurrence is the purely adventitious circumstance that the accident occurred there while New York has the dominant contacts.19
The court therefore rejects the inexorable application of the law of the place of the tort where that place has no reasonable or relevant interest in the particular issue involved.20 Instead, after examining the particular circumstances presented, the court applies the law of the jurisdiction that has a more compelling interest in the application of its law to the legal issue involved.21 Here New York's policy of requiring a tortfeasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by his negligence must prevail over Ontario's guest statute.22 The object of Ontario's guest statute is to prevent fraudulent claims against Ontario defendants and their insurance carriers, not New York defendants and their insurance carriers.
The law of the place of the tort does not invariably govern the availability of relief for the tort.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Judge Scileppi
Judge Van Voorhis dissents and would affirm the judgment dismissing the complaint.24 He argues that the decision changes the established law of the State as reflected in recent decisions such as Kaufman v. American Youth Hostels.25 In that case all significant contacts were with New York except the location of the accident.26 Yet the defense based on the law of the place of the accident was upheld.27 In his view the expressions center of gravity, grouping of contacts and significant contacts are catchwords.28 They were not employed to define and are inadequate to define a principle of law applicable in the realm of torts.29
He further contends that there is no overriding consideration of public policy which justifies or directs this change in the established rule.30 Such a change would render necessary or advisable the confusion which it will introduce.31 Attempts to make the law or public policy of New York prevail over the laws and policies of other States amount to a form of extraterritoriality.32 This can be turned against New York in actions involving citizens of other States.33
Whether the choice of law rule should also reflect a consideration of other factors which are relevant to the purposes served by the enforcement or denial of the remedy?34
The center of gravity or grouping of contacts doctrine affords the appropriate approach for accommodating the competing interests in tort cases with multi-State contacts.35 It does so by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation.36
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that the concern of New York is unquestionably the greater and more direct.37 The interest of Ontario is at best minimal.38 All parties resided in New York.39 The guest-host relationship arose in New York.40 The automobile was garaged, licensed and insured in New York.41 The week-end journey began and was to end in New York.42 In contrast, Ontario's sole relationship with the occurrence is the purely adventitious circumstance that the accident occurred there.43 New York's policy of requiring a tortfeasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by his negligence cannot be doubted.44 The Legislature has repeatedly refused to enact a guest statute.45 The courts have no reason to depart from that policy simply because the accident happened beyond its borders.46
Ontario has no conceivable interest in denying a remedy to a New York guest against his New York host for injuries suffered in Ontario by reason of conduct which was tortious under Ontario law.47 Whether New York defendants are imposed upon or their insurers defrauded by a New York plaintiff is scarcely a valid legislative concern of Ontario simply because the accident occurred there.48 The rights and liabilities of the parties which stem from their guest-host relationship should remain constant and not vary and shift as the automobile proceeds from place to place.49
The choice of law rule should also reflect a consideration of other factors which are relevant to the purposes served by the enforcement or denial of the remedy.50