Reich v. Purcell - 67 Cal. 2d 551, 63 Cal. Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (1967)

Rule:

In a complex situation involving multi-state contacts no single state alone can be deemed to create exclusively governing rights. The forum must search to find the proper law to apply based upon the interests of the litigants and the involved states. A choice of law resulting from a hopeless search for a governing foreign law to create a foreign vested right may defeat the legitimate interests of the litigants and the states involved.

Facts:

This wrongful death action arose out of a head-on collision of two automobiles in Missouri. One of the automobiles was owned and operated by defendant Joseph Purcell, a resident and domiciliary of California who was on his way to a vacation in Illinois. The other automobile was owned and operated by Mrs. Reich, the wife of plaintiff Lee Reich. The Reichs then resided in Ohio and Mrs. Reich and the Reichs' two children, Jay and Jeffry, were on their way to California, where the Reichs were contemplating settling. Mrs. Reich and Jay were killed in the collision, and Jeffry was injured. Missouri limited wrongful death damages under Mo. Ann. Stat. § 537.090, yet California and Ohio did not. The trial court held that the Missouri statute applied where the wrong occurred.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in applying the Missouri limitation statute?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that in a complex situation involving multi-state contacts, no single state alone could have been deemed to create exclusively governing rights. Accordingly, when application of the law of the place of the wrong would defeat the interests of the litigants and of the states concerned, the court had not applied that law for all tort actions brought in the courts of the state, and other cases to the contrary were overruled. Considering the interests of all three states involved, the court found that the driver's liability should not have been limited when no party to the action was from a state limiting liability. Giving effect to Ohio's interest in affording full recovery to the injured parties did not conflict with any substantial interest of Missouri. The Missouri limitation did not apply.