Long v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 16 N.Y.2d 337 (1965)
In multi-state tort actions, the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the issue and the greatest interest in its resolution should be applied, rather than the law of the place of the tort (lex loci delicti).
Summary
This case concerns a plane crash in Maryland involving passengers who purchased their tickets in Pennsylvania for a flight originating and terminating there. The plaintiffs, representing the deceased passengers, sought to recover under Pennsylvania’s wrongful death and survival statutes. The defendant, Pan American, argued that Maryland law, as the place of the tort, should govern, which would significantly limit the plaintiffs’ recovery. The New York Court of Appeals held that Pennsylvania law applied because Pennsylvania had the most significant contacts with the parties and the strongest interest in the litigation, reaffirming the principle established in Babcock v. Jackson and moving away from strict adherence to lex loci delicti.
Facts
On December 8, 1963, a Pan American airplane en route from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, crashed in Maryland.
Two passengers, Clyde Long and Ernest Grieco, were Pennsylvania residents who purchased round-trip tickets in Philadelphia.
The passengers were survived by siblings residing in Pennsylvania.
Pan American was a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs, appointed in Pennsylvania, filed suit in New York, seeking recovery under wrongful death and survival statutes, without specifying the jurisdiction.
The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Maryland law applied as the place of the tort.
Special Term denied the motion, holding that Pennsylvania law governed based on its greater contacts and concerns.
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Babcock was inapplicable to wrongful death actions.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a wrongful death action arising from a multi-state tort, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence should apply, rather than the law of the place where the injury occurred (lex loci delicti)?
Holding
Yes, because Pennsylvania had the most significant contacts with the parties and the greatest interest in the litigation, the law of Pennsylvania applies, not Maryland’s law as the place of the tort.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reaffirmed the principle established in Babcock v. Jackson, rejecting the inflexible application of the lex loci delicti rule in favor of applying the law of the jurisdiction with the “greatest concern” and “strongest interest” in the resolution of the issue.
Pennsylvania’s interest stemmed from its concern with administering the estates of its decedents and ensuring that its Wrongful Death and Survival statutes are enforced.
The court noted that Pennsylvania has an interest in ensuring the estate is indemnified for funeral and administrative expenses and in establishing liability under its Survival Act, protecting creditors and assuring the distributable estate includes the deceased’s potential lifetime earnings. As stated in Fisher v. Dye, 386 Pa. 141, 146-147, the Survival Act serves as a means of assuring that the distributable estate shall include some present value in lieu of what the deceased might have been expected to accumulate during a normal lifetime.
Pan American solicited interstate passengers in Pennsylvania and should be held responsible under Pennsylvania law for negligence towards those passengers.
Maryland’s sole connection was the fortuitous circumstance that the plane wreckage fell there.
Maryland’s restrictive wrongful death and survival statutes do not reflect a policy of protecting tortfeasors, but rather differ only in the class of persons who can sue and the extent of compensable damages.
The court distinguished this case by noting that New York was a neutral forum, disinterested in the conflict between Maryland and Pennsylvania policies, and that Pan American’s incorporation in New York was insufficient to warrant application of New York law.
The court found no basis to exclude wrongful death actions from the flexible choice-of-law principle established in Babcock, noting that other courts, including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, have similarly held that the law to be applied is that of the place having the most significant relationship with the issue, quoting Griffith v. United Air Lines, 416 Pa. 1, 7. The court considered it incongruous and unreal to apply the flexible principle when a victim is injured but not when they are killed.