Georgia W.

Babcock, Appellant,
v
Mabel B. Jackson, as Executrix of William H. Jackson, Decease, !esponent.
Court of Appeals of New York
Argued January 23, 1963
Decided ay 9, 1963
12 NY2d !"3
C#$% $#$&% A'( )a*cock + Jackson
,-!"6. /0#N#/N /1 $2% C/34$
13&D, J5
/n 1riday, 'epte6*er 16, 1967, iss 8eorgia )a*cock and 9er friends, r5 and rs5 :illia6
Jackson, all residents of 4oc9ester, left t9at city in r5 Jackson;s auto6o*ile, iss )a*cock as guest, for a
week<end trip to Canada5 'o6e 9ours later, as r5 Jackson was dri+ing in t9e 0ro+ince of /ntario, 9e
apparently lost control of t9e car= it went off t9e 9ig9way into an ad>acent stone wall, and iss )a*cock
was seriously in>ured5 3pon 9er return to t9is 'tate, s9e *roug9t ,-!"". t9e present action against :illia6
Jackson, alleging negligence on 9is part in operating 9is auto6o*ile5
"#$
At t9e ti6e of t9e accident, t9ere was in force in /ntario a statute pro+iding t9at ?t9e owner or
dri+er of a 6otor +e9icle, ot9er t9an a +e9icle operated in t9e *usiness of carrying passengers for
co6pensation, is not lia*le for any loss or da6age resulting fro6 *odily in>ury to, or t9e deat9 of any
person *eing carried in - - - t9e 6otor +e9icle? @2ig9way $raffic Act of 0ro+ince of /ntario ,/ntario
4e+5 'tat5 @1967A, c95 1"2., B17C, su*d5 ,2.A5 %+en t9oug9 no suc9 *ar is recogniDed under t9is 'tate;s
su*stanti+e law of torts @see, e.g., Higgins v. Mason, 2CC N5 Y5 17!, 17E= Nelson v. Nygren, 2C9 N5 Y5 "1A,
t9e defendant 6o+ed to dis6iss t9e co6plaint on t9e ground t9at t9e law of t9e place w9ere t9e accident
occurred go+erns and t9at /ntario;s guest statute *ars reco+ery5 $9e court at 'pecial $er6, agreeing wit9
t9e defendant, granted t9e 6otion and t9e Appellate Di+ision, o+er a strong dissent *y Justice 2alpern,
affir6ed t9e >udg6ent of dis6issal wit9out opinion5
$9e Fuestion presented is si6ply drawn5 '9all t9e law of t9e place of t9e tort
"%$
invariably go+ern
t9e a+aila*ility of relief for t9e tort or s9all t9e applica*le c9oice of law rule also reflect a consideration of
ot9er factors w9ic9 are rele+ant to t9e purposes ser+ed *y t9e enforce6ent or denial of t9e re6edyG
$9e traditional c9oice of law rule, e6*odied in t9e original 4estate6ent of Conflict of &aws @B
3E!A, and until recently unFuestioningly followed in t9is court @see, e.g.,Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc., 29E N5
Y5 62, 66= Kaufman v. American Yout Hostels, C N Y 2d 1716,6odfg5 6 A D 2d 223A, 9as *een t9at t9e
su*stanti+e rig9ts and lia*ilities arising out of a tortious occurrence are deter6ina*le *y t9e law of t9e
place of t9e tort5 @'ee 8oodric9, Conflict of &aws ,3d ed5, 19!9., p5 267= &eflar, $9e &aw of Conflict of
&aws ,19C9., p5 27"= 'tu6*erg, 0rinciples of Conflict of &aws ,2d ed5, 19C1., p5 1E25A #t 9ad its
conceptual foundation in t9e +ested rig9ts doctrine, na6ely, t9at a rig9t to reco+er for a foreign tort owes
its creation to t9e law of t9e ,-!"E. >urisdiction w9ere t9e in>ury occurred and depends for its eHistence
and eHtent solely on suc9 law5 @'ee 2ancock, $orts in t9e Conflict of &aws ,19!2., pp5 37<36= 4eese, $9e
%+er C9anging 4ules of C9oice of &aw, Nederlands $i>dsc9rift Ioor #nternationaal 4ec9t ,1962., 3E95A
Alt9oug9 espoused *y suc9 great figures as Justice 2ol6es @see !later v. Me"ican Nat. #. #. $o., 19! 35
'5 127A and 0rofessor )eale @2 Conflict of &aws ,193C., pp5 12E6<1292A, t9e +ested rig9ts doctrine 9as
long since *een discredited *ecause it fails to take account of underlying policy considerations in
e+aluating t9e significance to *e ascri*ed to t9e circu6stance t9at an act 9ad a foreign situs in
deter6ining t9e rig9ts and lia*ilities w9ic9 arise out of t9at act5
"&$
?$9e +ice of t9e +ested rig9ts t9eory?, it
9as *een aptly stated, ?is t9at it affects to decide concrete cases upon generalities w9ic9 do not state t9e
practical considerations in+ol+ed?5 @Ynte6a, $9e 2orn*ook et9od and t9e Conflict of &aws, 3" Yale &5
J5 !6E, !E2<!E35A ore particularly, as applied to torts, t9e t9eory ignores t9e interest w9ic9 >urisdictions
ot9er t9an t9at w9ere t9e tort occurred 6ay 9a+e in t9e resolution of particular issues5 #t is for t9is +ery
reason t9at, despite t9e ad+antages of certainty, ease of application and predicta*ility w9ic9 it affords @see
C9eat9a6 and 4eese, C9oice of t9e Applica*le &aw, C2 Col5 &5 4e+5 9C9, 9"6A, t9ere 9as in recent years
*een increasing criticis6 of t9e traditional rule *y co66entators
"'$
and a >udicial trend towards its
a*andon6ent or 6odification5
"($
,-!"9.
'ignificantly, it was dissatisfaction wit9 ?t9e 6ec9anical for6ulae of t9e conflicts of law? @%anston
$ommittee v. &reen, '() *. !. 1C6, 162A w9ic9 led to >udicial departure fro6 si6ilarly infleHi*le c9oice
of law rules in t9e field of contracts, grounded, like t9e torts rule, on t9e +ested rig9ts doctrine5 According
to t9ose traditional rules, 6atters *earing upon t9e eHecution, interpretation and +alidity of a contract
were deter6ina*le *y t9e internal law of t9e place w9ere t9e contract was 6ade, w9ile 6atters connected
wit9 t9eir perfor6ance were regulated *y t9e internal law of t9e place w9ere t9e contract was to *e
perfor6ed5 @!ee !+ift , $o. v. Ban-ers .rust $o., 2E7 N5 Y5 13C, 1!1= see, also, 4estate6ent, Conflict of
&aws, BB 332, 3CE= 8oodric9, Conflict of &aws ,3d ed5, 19!9., pp5 3!2<3!35A
#n Auten v. Auten @37E N5 Y5 1CCA, 9owe+er, t9is court a*andoned suc9 rules and applied w9at 9as
*een ter6ed t9e ?center of gra+ity? or ?grouping of contacts? t9eory of t9e conflict of laws5 ?3nder t9is
t9eory,? we declared in t9e Auten case, ?t9e courts, instead of regarding as conclusi+e t9e parties;
intention or t9e place of 6aking or perfor6ance, lay e6p9asis rat9er upon t9e law of t9e place ;w9ic9 9as
t9e 6ost significant contacts wit9 t9e 6atter in dispute; ? @37E N5 Y5, at p5 167A5 $9e ?center of gra+ity?
rule of Auten 9as not only *een applied in ot9er cases in t9is 'tate,
")$
as well as in ot9er >urisdictions,
"*$
*ut
9as supplanted t9e prior rigid and set contract rules in t9e 6ost current draft of t9e 4estate6ent of
Conflict of &aws5 @'ee 4estate6ent, 'econd, Conflict of &aws, B 332* ,$entati+e Draft No5 6, 1967.5A
4ealiDation of t9e un>ust and ano6alous results w9ic9 6ay ensue fro6 application of t9e traditional
rule in tort cases 9as also pro6pted >udicial searc9 for a 6ore satisfactory alternati+e in t9at area5 #n t9e
6uc9 discussed case of Kilberg v. Norteast Airlines @9 N Y 2d 3!A, t9is court declined to apply t9e law of
t9e place of t9e tort as respects t9e issue of t9e Fuantu6 of t9e reco+ery in a deat9 action arising out of an
airplane cras9, ,-!E7. w9ere t9e decedent 9ad *een a New York resident and 9is relations9ip wit9 t9e
defendant airline 9ad originated in t9is 'tate5 #n 9is opinion for t9e court, C9ief Judge Des6ond
descri*ed, wit9 force and logic, t9e s9ortco6ings of t9e traditional rule @9 N Y 2d, at p5 39A(
?odern conditions 6ake it un>ust and ano6alous to su*>ect t9e tra+eling citiDen of t9is 'tate to t9e
+arying laws of ot9er 'tates t9roug9 and o+er w9ic9 t9ey 6o+e5 - - - An air tra+eler fro6 New York 6ay
in a flig9t of a few 9ours; duration pass t9roug9 - - - co66onwealt9s ,li6iting deat9 da6age awards.5
2is plane 6ay 6eet wit9 disaster in a 'tate 9e ne+er intended to cross *ut into w9ic9 t9e plane 9as flown
*ecause of *ad weat9er or ot9er uneHpected de+elop6ents, or an airplane;s catastrop9ic descent 6ay
*egin in one 'tate and end in anot9er5 $9e place of in>ury *eco6es entirely fortuitous5 /ur courts s9ould
if possi*le pro+ide protection for our own 'tate;s people against unfair and anac9ronistic treat6ent of t9e
lawsuits w9ic9 result fro6 t9ese disasters5?
$9e e6p9asis in Kilberg was plainly t9at t9e 6erely fortuitous circu6stance t9at t9e wrong and
in>ury occurred in assac9usetts did not gi+e t9at 'tate a controlling concern or interest in t9e a6ount of
t9e tort reco+ery as against t9e co6peting interest of New York in pro+iding its residents or users of
transportation facilities t9ere originating wit9 full co6pensation for wrongful deat95 Alt9oug9
t9e Kilberg case did not eHpressly adopt t9e ?center of gra+ity? t9eory, its weig9ing of t9e contacts or
interests of t9e respecti+e >urisdictions to deter6ine t9eir *earing on t9e issue of t9e eHtent of t9e reco+ery
is consistent wit9 t9at approac95 @'ee &eflar, Conflict of &aws, 1961 Ann5 'ur5 A6er5 &aw, 29, !C5A
$9e sa6e >udicial disposition is also reflected in a +ariety of ot9er decisions, so6e of recent date,
ot9ers of earlier origin, relating to work6en;s co6pensation,
"+$
tortious occurrences aristing ,-!E1. out of a
contract,
",$
issues affecting t9e sur+i+al of a tort rig9t of action
"#-$
and intrafa6ilial i66unity fro6
tort
"##$
and situations in+ol+ing a for6 of statutory lia*ility5
"#%$
$9ese nu6erous cases differ in 6any ways
*ut t9ey are all si6ilar in two i6portant respects5 1irst, *y one rationale or anot9er, t9ey re>ected t9e
ineHora*le application of t9e law of t9e place of t9e tort w9ere t9at place 9as no reasona*le or rele+ant
interest in t9e particular issue in+ol+ed5 And, second, in eac9 of t9ese cases t9e courts, after eHa6ining t9e
particular circu6stances presented, applied t9e law of so6e >urisdiction ot9er t9an t9e place of t9e tort
*ecause it 9ad a 6ore co6pelling interest in t9e application of its law to t9e legal issue in+ol+ed5
$9e ?center of gra+ity? or ?grouping of contacts? doctrine adopted *y t9is court in conflicts cases
in+ol+ing contracts i6presses us as likewise affording t9e appropriate approac9 for acco66odating t9e
co6peting interests in tort cases wit9 6ulti<'tate contacts5 Justice, fairness and ?t9e *est practical result?
@!+ift , $o. v. Ban-ers .rust $o.,2E7 N5 Y5 13C, 1!1, supraA 6ay *est *e ac9ie+ed *y gi+ing controlling
effect to t9e law of t9e >urisdiction w9ic9, *ecause of its relations9ip or contact wit9 t9e occurrence or t9e
parties, 9as t9e greatest concern wit9 t9e specific issue raised in t9e litigation5 $9e 6erit of suc9 a rule is
t9at ?it gi+es to t9e place ;9a+ing t9e 6ost interest in t9e pro*le6; para6ount control o+er t9e legal issues
arising out of a particular factual conteHt? and t9ere*y allows t9e foru6 to apply ?t9e policy of t9e
>urisdiction ;6ost ,-!E2.inti6ately concerned wit9 t9e outco6e of ,t9e. particular litigation5; ? @Auten v.
Auten, 37E N5 Y5 1CC, 161, supra5A
'uc9, indeed, is t9e approac9 adopted in t9e 6ost recent re+ision of t9e Conflict of &aws
4estate6ent in t9e field of torts5 According to t9e principles t9ere set out, ?$9e local law of t9e state
w9ic9 9as t9e 6ost significant relations9ip wit9 t9e occurrence and wit9 t9e parties deter6ines t9eir
rig9ts and lia*ilities in tort? @4estate6ent, 'econd, Conflict of &aws, B 3"9,1.= also #ntroductory Note to
$opic 1 of C9apter 9, p5 3 ,$entati+e Draft No5 E, 1963.A, and t9e relati+e i6portance of t9e relations9ips
or contacts of t9e respecti+e >urisdictions is to *e e+aluated in t9e lig9t of ?t9e issues, t9e c9aracter of t9e
tort and t9e rele+ant purposes of t9e tort rules in+ol+ed? @B 3"9,2., ,3.A5
Co6parison of t9e relati+e ?contacts? and ?interests? of New York and /ntario in t9is litigation, +is<
a<+is t9e issue 9ere presented, 6akes it clear t9at t9e concern of New York is unFuestiona*ly t9e greater
and 6ore direct and t9at t9e interest of /ntario is at *est 6ini6al5 $9e present action in+ol+es in>uries
sustained *y a New York guest as t9e result of t9e negligence of a New York 9ost in t9e operation of an
auto6o*ile, garaged, licensed and undou*tedly insured in New York, in t9e course of a week<end >ourney
w9ic9 *egan and was to end t9ere5 #n s9arp contrast, /ntario;s sole relations9ip wit9 t9e occurrence is t9e
purely ad+entitious circu6stance t9at t9e accident occurred t9ere5
New York;s policy of reFuiring a tort<feasor to co6pensate 9is guest for in>uries caused *y 9is
negligence cannot *e dou*ted J as attested *y t9e fact t9at t9e &egislature of t9is 'tate 9as repeatedly
refused to enact a statute denying or li6iting reco+ery in suc9 cases @see, e.g., 1937 'en5 #nt5 No5 339, 0r5
No5 3!9= 193C 'en5 #nt5 No5 16E, 0r5 No5 1"7= 1967 'en5 #nt5 No5 3662, 0r5 No5 396"A J and our courts
9a+e neit9er reason nor warrant for departing fro6 t9at policy si6ply *ecause t9e accident, solely
affecting New York residents and arising out of t9e operation of a New York *ased auto6o*ile, 9appened
*eyond its *orders5 0er contra, /ntario 9as no concei+a*le interest in denying a re6edy to a New York
guest against 9is New York 9ost for in>uries suffered in /ntario *y reason of conduct w9ic9 was tortious
under /ntario law5 $9e o*>ect of /ntario;s guest statute, it 9as *een said, is ?to pre+ent t9e fraudulent
assertion ,-!E3. of clai6s *y passengers, in collusion wit9 t9e dri+ers, against insurance co6panies?
@'ur+ey of Canadian &egislation, 1 35 $oronto &5 J5 3CE, 366A and, Fuite o*+iously, t9e fraudulent clai6s
intended to *e pre+ented *y t9e statute are t9ose asserted against /ntario defendants and t9eir insurance
carriers, not New York defendants and t9eir insurance carriers5 :9et9er New York defendants are
i6posed upon or t9eir insurers defrauded *y a New York plaintiff is scarcely a +alid legislati+e concern of
/ntario si6ply *ecause t9e accident occurred t9ere, any 6ore so t9an if t9e accident 9ad 9appened in
so6e ot9er >urisdiction5
#t is 9ardly necessary to say t9at /ntario;s interest is Fuite different fro6 w9at it would 9a+e *een
9ad t9e issue related to t9e 6anner in w9ic9 t9e defendant 9ad *een dri+ing 9is car at t9e ti6e of t9e
accident5 :9ere t9e defendant;s eHercise of due care in t9e operation of 9is auto6o*ile is in issue, t9e
>urisdiction in w9ic9 t9e allegedly wrongful conduct occurred will usually 9a+e a predo6inant, if not
eHclusi+e, concern5 #n suc9 a case, it is appropriate to look to t9e law of t9e place of t9e tort so as to gi+e
effect to t9at >urisdiction;s interest in regulating conduct wit9in its *orders, and it would *e al6ost
unt9inka*le to seek t9e applica*le rule in t9e law of so6e ot9er place5
$9e issue 9ere, 9owe+er, is not w9et9er t9e defendant offended against a rule of t9e road prescri*ed
*y /ntario for 6otorists generally or w9et9er 9e +iolated so6e standard of conduct i6posed *y t9at
>urisdiction, *ut rat9er w9et9er t9e plaintiff, *ecause s9e was a guest in t9e defendant;s auto6o*ile, is
*arred fro6 reco+ering da6ages for a wrong concededly co66itted5 As to t9at issue, it is New York, t9e
place w9ere t9e parties resided, w9ere t9eir guest< 9ost relations9ip arose and w9ere t9e trip *egan and
was to end, rat9er t9an /ntario, t9e place of t9e fortuitous occurrence of t9e accident, w9ic9 9as t9e
do6inant contacts and t9e superior clai6 for application of its law5 Alt9oug9 t9e rig9tness or wrongness
of defendant;s conduct 6ay depend upon t9e law of t9e particular >urisdiction t9roug9 w9ic9 t9e
auto6o*ile passes, t9e rig9ts and lia*ilities of t9e parties w9ic9 ste6 fro6 t9eir guest<9ost relations9ip
s9ould re6ain constant and not +ary and s9ift as t9e auto6o*ile proceeds fro6 place to place5 #ndeed,
suc9 a result, we note, ,-!E!. accords wit9 ?t9e interests of t9e 9ost in procuring lia*ility insurance
adeFuate under t9e applica*le law, and t9e interests of 9is insurer in reasona*le calcula*ility of t9e
pre6iu65? @%9renDweig, 8uest 'tatutes in t9e Conflict of &aws, 69 Yale &5 J5 C9C, 6735A
Alt9oug9 t9e traditional rule 9as in t9e past *een applied *y t9is court in gi+ing controlling effect to
t9e guest statute of t9e foreign >urisdiction in w9ic9 t9e accident occurred @see, e.g., !mit v. $lute, 2""
N5 Y5 !7"= Kerfoot v. Kelley, 29! N5 Y5 2EE= Naptali v. /afa0an, E N Y 2d 179", affg5 E A D 2d 22A, it is
not a6iss to point out t9at t9e Fuestion 9ere posed was neit9er raised nor considered in t9ose cases and
t9at t9e Fuestion 9as ne+er *een presented in so stark a 6anner as in t9e case *efore us wit9 a statute so
uniFue as /ntario;s5
"#&$
)e t9at as it 6ay, 9owe+er, reconsideration of t9e infleHi*le traditional rule
persuades us, as already indicated, t9at, in failing to take into account essential policy considerations and
o*>ecti+es, its application 6ay lead to un>ust and ano6alous results5 $9is *eing so, t9e rule, for6ulated as
it was *y t9e courts, s9ould *e discarded5 @$f. Bing v. .unig, ( N Y 2d 6C6, 66"= 1oo2s v. /ancet, 373 N5
Y5 3!9, 3CC5A
"#'$
#n conclusion, t9en, t9ere is no reason w9y all issues arising out of a tort clai6 6ust *e resol+ed *y
reference to t9e law of t9e sa6e >urisdiction5 :9ere t9e issue in+ol+es standards of conduct, it is 6ore
t9an likely t9at it is t9e law of t9e place of t9e tort w9ic9 will *e controlling *ut t9e disposition of ot9er
issues 6ust turn, as does t9e issue of t9e standard of conduct itself, on t9e law of t9e >urisdiction w9ic9
9as t9e strongest interest in t9e resolution of t9e particular issue presented5 ,-!EC.
$9e >udg6ent appealed fro6 s9ould *e re+ersed, wit9 costs, and t9e 6otion to dis6iss t9e co6plaint
denied5
IAN I//42#', J5 @DissentingA5
$9e decision a*out to *e 6ade of t9is appeal c9anges t9e esta*lis9ed law of t9is 'tate, one of t9e
6ost recent decisions t9e ot9er way *eing Kaufman v. American Yout Hostels @C N Y 2d 1716A, w9ere all
of t9e ?significant contacts? were wit9 New York 'tate eHcept t9e 6ountain w9ic9 plaintiff;s intestate was
cli6*ing w9en s9e 6et 9er deat95 $9e defense of i66unity of a c9arita*le corporation under t9e /regon
law, w9ere t9e accident occurred, was inapplica*le under t9e law of New York w9ere t9e defendant
corporation was organiDed and staffed, and plaintiff and 9is intestate resided5 Ne+ert9eless t9e court
declined to strike t9at defense fro6 t9e answer, *ased upon /regon law5 Concerning, as it did, solely t9e
status of t9e defendant corporation, Kaufman v. American Yout Hostels presented a stronger case for t9e
application of New York law t9an does t9e present5 $9e case of Auten v. Auten @37E N5 Y5 1CCA, in+ol+ing
a separation agree6ent *etween %nglis9 people and pro+iding for t9e support of a wife and c9ildren to
continue to li+e in %ngland, acco6plis9ed no suc9 re+olution in t9e law as t9e present appeal5 Auten v.
Auten dealt wit9 contracts, t9e agree6ent was 9eld to *e go+erned *y t9e law of t9e country w9ere it was
6ainly to *e perfor6ed, w9ic9 9ad pre+iously *een t9e law, and t9e salient eHpressions ?center of
gra+ity?, ?grouping of contacts?, and si6ilar catc9words were e6ployed as a s9ort9and reference to t9e
reconciliation of suc9 rigid concepts in t9e conflict of laws as t9e for6ulae 6aking applica*le t9e place
w9ere t9e contract was signed or w9ere it was to *e perfor6ed J rules w9ic9 t9e6sel+es were
occasionally in conflict wit9 one anot9er5 #n t9e course of t9e opinion it was stated t9at ?e+en if we were
not to place our e6p9asis on t9e law of t9e place wit9 t9e 6ost significant contacts, *ut were instead
si6ply to apply t9e rule t9at 6atters of perfor6ance and *reac9 are go+erned *y t9e law of t9e place of
perfor6ance, t9e sa6e result would follow? @37E N5 Y5, p5 163A5 $9e decision in Auten v.
Auten rationaliDed and rendered 6ore worka*le t9e eHisting law of contracts5 $9e na6e ?grouping of
contacts? was si6ply a la*el to identify t9e rationaliDation of eHisting decisions on t9e conflict of laws
in ,-!E6. contract cases w9ic9 were tec9nically inconsistent, in so6e instances5 $9e difference *etween
t9e present case andAuten v. Auten is t9at Auten did not 6aterially c9ange t9e law, *ut soug9t to for6ulate
w9at 9ad pre+iously *een decided5 $9e present case 6akes su*stantial c9anges in t9e law of torts5 $9e
eHpressions ?center of gra+ity?, ?grouping of contacts,? and ?significant contacts? are catc9words w9ic9
were not e6ployed to define and are inadeFuate to define a principle of law, and were neit9er applied to
nor are t9ey applica*le in t9e real6 of torts5
Any idea is wit9out foundation t9at cases suc9 as t9e present render 6ore unifor6 t9e laws of torts
in t9e se+eral 'tates of t9e 3nited 'tates5 Atte6pts to 6ake t9e law or pu*lic policy of New York 'tate
pre+ail o+er t9e laws and policies of ot9er 'tates w9ere citiDens of New York 'tate are concerned are
si6ply a for6 of eHtraterritoriality w9ic9 can *e turned against us w9ere+er actions are *roug9t in t9e
courts of New York w9ic9 in+ol+e citiDens of ot9er 'tates5 $9is is no su*stitute for unifor6 'tate laws or
for o*taining unifor6ity *y co+ering t9e su*>ect *y 1ederal law5 3ndou*tedly ease of tra+el and
co66unication, and t9e increase in interstate *usiness 9a+e rendered 6ore awkward discrepancies
*etween t9e laws of t9e 'tates in 6any respects5 )ut t9is is not a condition to *e cured *y introducing or
eHtending principles of eHtraterritoriality, as t9oug9 we were li+ing in t9e days of t9e 4o6an or )ritis9
%6pire, w9en t9e concepts were for6ed t9at t9e rig9ts of a 4o6an or an %nglis96an were so significant
t9at t9ey 6ust *e enforced t9roug9out t9e world e+en w9ere t9ey were ot9erwise unlikely to *e 9onored
*y ?lesser *reeds wit9out t9e law5? #6porting t9e principles of eHtraterritoriality into t9e conflicts of laws
*etween t9e 'tates of t9e 3nited 'tates can only 6ake confusion worse confounded5 #f eHtraterritoriality
is to *e t9e criterion, w9at would 9appen, for eHa6ple, in case of an auto6o*ile accident w9ere so6e of
t9e passengers ca6e fro6 or were picked up in 'tates or countries w9ere causes of action against t9e
dri+er were pro9i*ited, ot9ers w9ere gross negligence needed to *e s9own, so6e, per9aps, fro6 'tates
w9ere contri*utory negligence and ot9ers w9ere co6parati+e negligence pre+ailedG #n t9e 6a>ority
opinion it is said t9at ?:9ere t9e defendant;s eHercise of due care in t9e operation of 9is auto6o*ile is in
issue, t9e >urisdiction in w9ic9 t9e allegedly wrongful conduct occurred ,-!E". will usually 9a+e a
predo6inant, if not eHclusi+e, concern5? $9is is 9ardly consistent wit9 t9e state6ent in t9e footnote t9at
gross negligence would not need to *e esta*lis9ed in an action *y a passenger if t9e accident occurred in a
'tate w9ose statute so reFuired5 #f t9e status of t9e passenger as a New Yorker would pre+ent t9e
operation of a statute in a sister 'tate or neig9*oring country w9ic9 granted i66unity to t9e dri+er in
suits *y passengers, it is said t9at it would also pre+ent t9e operation of a statute w9ic9 instead of granting
i66unity per6its reco+ery only in case of gross negligence5 $9ere are passenger statutes or co66on<law
decisions reFuiring gross negligence or its su*stantial eFui+alent to *e s9own in 29 'tates5 /ne wonders
w9at would 9appen if contri*utory negligence were eli6inated as a defense *y statute in anot9er
>urisdictionG /r if co6parati+e negligence were esta*lis9ed as t9e rule in t9e ot9er 'tateG
#n 6y +iew t9ere is no o+erriding consideration of pu*lic policy w9ic9 >ustifies or directs t9is
c9ange in t9e esta*lis9ed rule or renders necessary or ad+isa*le t9e confusion w9ic9 suc9 a c9ange will
introduce5
$9e >udg6ent dis6issing t9e co6plaint s9ould *e affir6ed5
C9ief Judge Des6ond and Judges Dye, )urke and 1oster concur wit9 Judge 1uld= Judge Ian
Ioor9is dissents in an opinion in w9ic9 Judge 'cileppi concurs5
Judg6ent re+ersed, wit9 costs in all courts, and 6atter re6itted to 'pecial $er6 for furt9er
proceedings in accordance wit9 t9e opinion 9erein5