Verdicts

Plaintiff administratrix of the estate brought suit in federal court for wrongful death and for a survival action against the doctors and health care institutions residing in Pennsylvania. She chose to bring a separate suit in New Jersey state court against the New Jersey defendants. All the Pennsylvania defendants in turn brought suit for indemnity and/or contribution against the involved doctors and health care institutions in New Jersey.

Some of the New Jersey defendants moved for a partial summary judgment holding that New Jersey law regarding damages for survival actions should apply to the New Jersey defendants. The Pennsylvania defendants contended New Jersey law (which is more favorable to defendants) should also be applied to them, in order to avoid confusion. Plaintiff objected to the application of New Jersey law, arguing in her cross-motion for partial summary judgment that Pennsylvania law should apply to all claims, but especially to her claims against the Pennsylvania defendants.

Because the court sits in Pennsylvania, it applied Pennsylvania's choice of law rules to determine whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law applied to each of the claims in the instant case. Pennsylvania's inquiry in determining which state's law should apply to particular causes of action asks first if the different laws would produce different results. If so, the court must determine if this is a “false conflict,” meaning that only one of the jurisdiction's governmental policies would be impaired by application of the other jurisdiction's law. If a false conflict does exist, the court must apply the law of the jurisdiction whose interests would be impaired.

Here, Pennsylvania's liberal damages serve the dual purposes of deterring tortious conduct within Pennsylvania's borders and protecting the estates and creditors of decedents. This policy is so strong that it has been embodied in the state's constitution. In contrast, the New Jersey Legislature, in providing for such limited recovery under its Survival Act, had expressed its overriding interest in protecting New Jersey defendants.

With regard to the choice of law to be applied to the Pennsylvania defendants, the court noted that plaintiff's decedent was a full-time student at a Pennsylvania university, was injured in Pennsylvania and was brought to a Pennsylvania hospital where the negligence leading to his death allegedly occurred, and the only connection this case had to New Jersey was plaintiff's decedent's citizenship. Therefore, Pennsylvania clearly had more contacts with the case. It also had the greater interest in having its law applied because application of Pennsylvania law would deter similar tortious conduct within its borders and promote recovery for decedents' estates and creditors. In contrast, New Jersey had no interest in protecting these Pennsylvania defendants, especially when all allegedly tortious actions occurred in Pennsylvania. Hence, the court found a “false conflict.” Since application of Pennsylvania law would not only promote Pennsylvania's interest but would also avoid any deleterious impact on New Jersey's policy, Pennsylvania law would be applied to plaintiff's claims against the Pennsylvania defendants.

On the other hand, the basis of the Pennsylvania defendants' claims against the New Jersey defendants was negligence that would have contributed to decedent's death, thereby making New Jersey defendants liable to Pennsylvania defendants for contribution and/or indemnity for any liability the Pennsylvania defendants incurred. This negligence would have necessarily occurred in New Jersey. Hence, Pennsylvania's interest in deterring tortious conduct within its borders and protecting the estates and creditors of decedents are not implicated here. The damages plaintiff can recover if she succeeds in her claims against Pennsylvania defendants are not affected by what damages Pennsylvania defendants can or cannot recover from New Jersey defendants in indemnity or contribution. In contrast, New Jersey's interest in protecting its residents from large recoveries is directly implicated since these defendants were New Jersey residents who might be held liable. Since application of New Jersey law would not only promote New Jersey's interest but would also avoid any deleterious impact on Pennsylvania's policy, New Jersey law would be applied to Pennsylvania defendants' claims against the New Jersey defendants.

Different Law Applied to Different Defendants

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that Pennsylvania's law should apply to the defendants in the original wrongful death suit here, but that those defendants' suits for contribution against out-of-state defendants required application of New Jersey law. McCrossan v. Wiles, Civ. Act. NO. 02-8402, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17506 (8/27/04).

Plaintiff's decedent was involved in an automobile accident in Lancaster County, PA. At the time of the accident, decedent was a citizen of New Jersey, although he was a full-time student in Philadelphia. The decedent was brought to Lancaster General Hospital for treatment. Later, he was emergently transferred to West Jersey Hospital, in his home state, and died soon thereafter.

Plaintiff administratrix of the estate brought suit in federal court for wrongful death and for a survival action against the doctors and health care institutions residing in Pennsylvania. She chose to bring a separate suit in New Jersey state court against the New Jersey defendants. All the Pennsylvania defendants in turn brought suit for indemnity and/or contribution against the involved doctors and health care institutions in New Jersey.

Some of the New Jersey defendants moved for a partial summary judgment holding that New Jersey law regarding damages for survival actions should apply to the New Jersey defendants. The Pennsylvania defendants contended New Jersey law (which is more favorable to defendants) should also be applied to them, in order to avoid confusion. Plaintiff objected to the application of New Jersey law, arguing in her cross-motion for partial summary judgment that Pennsylvania law should apply to all claims, but especially to her claims against the Pennsylvania defendants.

Because the court sits in Pennsylvania, it applied Pennsylvania's choice of law rules to determine whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law applied to each of the claims in the instant case. Pennsylvania's inquiry in determining which state's law should apply to particular causes of action asks first if the different laws would produce different results. If so, the court must determine if this is a “false conflict,” meaning that only one of the jurisdiction's governmental policies would be impaired by application of the other jurisdiction's law. If a false conflict does exist, the court must apply the law of the jurisdiction whose interests would be impaired.

Here, Pennsylvania's liberal damages serve the dual purposes of deterring tortious conduct within Pennsylvania's borders and protecting the estates and creditors of decedents. This policy is so strong that it has been embodied in the state's constitution. In contrast, the New Jersey Legislature, in providing for such limited recovery under its Survival Act, had expressed its overriding interest in protecting New Jersey defendants.

With regard to the choice of law to be applied to the Pennsylvania defendants, the court noted that plaintiff's decedent was a full-time student at a Pennsylvania university, was injured in Pennsylvania and was brought to a Pennsylvania hospital where the negligence leading to his death allegedly occurred, and the only connection this case had to New Jersey was plaintiff's decedent's citizenship. Therefore, Pennsylvania clearly had more contacts with the case. It also had the greater interest in having its law applied because application of Pennsylvania law would deter similar tortious conduct within its borders and promote recovery for decedents' estates and creditors. In contrast, New Jersey had no interest in protecting these Pennsylvania defendants, especially when all allegedly tortious actions occurred in Pennsylvania. Hence, the court found a “false conflict.” Since application of Pennsylvania law would not only promote Pennsylvania's interest but would also avoid any deleterious impact on New Jersey's policy, Pennsylvania law would be applied to plaintiff's claims against the Pennsylvania defendants.

On the other hand, the basis of the Pennsylvania defendants' claims against the New Jersey defendants was negligence that would have contributed to decedent's death, thereby making New Jersey defendants liable to Pennsylvania defendants for contribution and/or indemnity for any liability the Pennsylvania defendants incurred. This negligence would have necessarily occurred in New Jersey. Hence, Pennsylvania's interest in deterring tortious conduct within its borders and protecting the estates and creditors of decedents are not implicated here. The damages plaintiff can recover if she succeeds in her claims against Pennsylvania defendants are not affected by what damages Pennsylvania defendants can or cannot recover from New Jersey defendants in indemnity or contribution. In contrast, New Jersey's interest in protecting its residents from large recoveries is directly implicated since these defendants were New Jersey residents who might be held liable. Since application of New Jersey law would not only promote New Jersey's interest but would also avoid any deleterious impact on Pennsylvania's policy, New Jersey law would be applied to Pennsylvania defendants' claims against the New Jersey defendants.