81 N.Y.2d 66, 595 N.Y.S.2d 919, 612 N.E.2d 277 (1993)
In 1957 or 1958, Kling Brothers, Inc., later succeeded in interest by Hill Acme Co., manufactured a sixteen-foot-wide Pyramid Form Bending Roll machine designed to shape large pieces of metal.1 The machine was sold in 1958 to American Standard Inc. in Buffalo through New York sales agent Osgood Machinery, Inc., which assisted with setup and initial operation.2 American Standard closed its Buffalo plant around 1961.3
In 1969 Crouse Company sold the machine to Paul Mueller Co., a Missouri domiciliary.4 Mueller installed the bending roll at its Springfield, Missouri plant and later modified it by adding a foot switch.5 In October 1978, Dennis J. Cooney, a Missouri resident working at the Mueller plant, was injured while cleaning the machine, which continued running because a piece of wood had become wedged in the foot switch.6
Cooney applied for and received workers' compensation benefits in Missouri.7 He then commenced a products liability action against Osgood in Supreme Court, Erie County, New York.8 Osgood impleaded Mueller, American Standard, and Hill Acme as third-party defendants seeking contribution.9 Mueller moved for summary judgment, relying on the Missouri statute that shields employers from contribution claims.10
Supreme Court performed a choice-of-law analysis and concluded that New York law should govern the contribution issue.11 The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and dismissed the third-party complaint and all cross claims against Mueller.12
Whether a Missouri statute barring contribution claims against an employer should be given effect in a third-party action pending in New York?13
Under New York choice-of-law principles derived from interest analysis and the Neumeier rules, when loss-allocating statutes of different states conflict in a true split-domicile case, the law of the place of injury governs unless displacing it advances substantive policies without impairing the multistate system or reasonable expectations.14
Yes. The injury to Cooney occurred at Mueller's Missouri plant when the bending roll continued operating due to the wedged foot switch.15 Missouri's workers' compensation statute immunizes employers from contribution claims as the core of its quid pro quo scheme balancing no-fault liability with protection from tort verdicts.16 New York's contribution rules under Dole and CPLR article 14 advance fairness among joint tortfeasors, yet the parties' interests are irreconcilable.17
The second Neumeier rule therefore selects the locus of injury as the tiebreaker.18 Missouri law also aligns with the reasonable expectations of a Missouri employer that never anticipated New York contribution exposure for a local accident.19
The Missouri statute should be given effect, requiring dismissal of the third-party contribution claim against Mueller.20
Whether New York's contacts with the case satisfy the constitutional threshold for applying its own law under the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses?21
A forum may apply its own law only when aggregate contacts with the litigation create a sufficient nexus so that application is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair under the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses.22
Yes. Osgood is a New York domiciliary whose alleged tortious conduct in selling and setting up the machine occurred entirely in New York.23 Mueller maintains a substantial presence and does business in New York.24 These contacts, taken together, give New York a legitimate interest in the contribution issue sufficient to permit application of its law without violating constitutional limits.25
New York's contacts satisfy the constitutional threshold, allowing a choice-of-law analysis to proceed.26
Whether New York's public policy exception precludes application of the Missouri statute?27
The public policy exception permits a court to refuse application of otherwise governing foreign law only when that law would violate a fundamental principle of justice, prevalent conception of good morals, or deep-rooted tradition of the common weal, and only after choice-of-law analysis has already selected the foreign law and the forum's nexus is substantial.28
No. New York's interest in contribution, while significant, is not so deeply rooted that any abrogation violates fundamental public policy.29 Contribution itself is a relatively recent development rather than an ancient common-weal tradition, and its availability is never guaranteed because of jurisdictional or solvency obstacles.30 Missouri's immunity rule reflects a considered legislative judgment that does not shock New York's sense of justice under the Loucks standard.31
New York's public policy exception does not preclude application of the Missouri statute.32