Simon v. United States - 805 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2004)

Rule:

In tort cases, Indiana choice-of-law analysis involves multiple inquiries. As a preliminary matter, the court determines whether the differences between the laws of the states are important enough to affect the outcome of the litigation. If such a conflict exists, the presumption is that the traditional lex loci delicti rule (the place of the wrong) applies. Under that rule, the court applies the substantive laws of the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for the alleged wrong took place. This presumption is not conclusive. It may be overcome if the court is persuaded that the place of the tort bears little connection to the instant legal action. If the location of the tort is insignificant to the action, the court considers other contacts that may be more relevant, such as: (1) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (2) the residence or place of business of the parties; and (3) the place where the relationship is centered. These factors are not an exclusive list nor are they necessarily relevant in every case. All contacts should be evaluated according to their relative importance to the particular issues being litigated. This evaluation ought to focus on the essential elements of the whole cause of action, rather than on the issues one party or the other forecasts will be the most hotly contested given the anticipated proofs.

Facts:

A small private aircraft, which began in Pennsylvania and ended in Kentucky, crashed, resulting in the death of several individuals. Plaintiff estates of individuals filed four wrongful death complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They alleged negligence in the publication at Washington of a chart incorrectly showing that a long- inactive instrument landing approach at the airport was active; and the negligence of Indiana- based air traffic controllers in clearing the pilot for an approach that was out of service, neglecting to monitor the radar during the flight's landing approach, failing to alert the pilot that he was in peril of striking an obstacle, and failing to respond to the pilot's last-minute radio communications. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified questions regarding conflicts between Indiana and District of Columbia choice of law rules and what jurisdiction's substantive law would apply to the case under Indiana law.

Issue:

1. Did a true conflict of law exist between Indiana's and the District of Columbia's choice-of-law rules? 
2. Should the substantive law of Indiana apply in the instant case? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that Indiana had never, unlike the District, adopted the choice of law principle of depecage, under which different issues within the same case could be analyzed separately under the laws of several states. Although Indiana had modernized its historic lex loci delicti approach, it still focused on the contacts between the action and the relevant states to see which state had the most significant relationship with the action. If the case had been filed in Indiana, the court would have first noted the significant conflict of laws. It would then have looked to the various jurisdictions involved, such as Pennsylvania, where tort law was quite different. Although the crash occurred in Kentucky, that was a matter of chance, and none of the parties had significant ties there. Based on all the relevant factors, Indiana seemed to have the most significant ties, since it was the place where the alleged negligent conduct occurred.