Goldberg v. American Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1960 |
| Citation | 199 N.Y.S.2d 134,23 Misc.2d 215 |
| Parties | Anneliese GOLDBERG, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edith Feis, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Kollsman Instrument Corporation and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Speiser, Quinn & O'Brien, New York City (Robert A. Dwyer, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for defendant American Airlines, Inc.
Arthur Richenthal, New York City, (Irving M. Moss, David Abrams, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Kollsman Instrument Corp.
Mendes & Mount, New York City, (Kenneth R. Thompson, George W. Clark, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
As a result of an airplane accident, plaintiff's intestate was killed. The administratrix brings this action against the carrier and two other defendants, the builder of the airplane and the manufacturer of the altimeter which was incorporated in the plane. The second cause of action directed against the former and the third directed against the latter, are both based on breach of warranty.
On the motions to dismiss these causes of action the questions raised are identical. Plaintiff makes no claim that according to the law of New York any cause of action is stated. Plaintiff claims that the law of California applies and that according to the law in that state there is an implied warranty of fitness which inures to the benefit of the plaintiff. The only allegations of the complaint which have to do with locality are that the flight in question originated in Illinois and the accident was in New York.
It is plaintiff's contention both that the plane was sold to the carrier and that the altimeter was sold to the builder and installed in the plane in California. Plaintiff further contends that allegations to that effect are unnecessary. This conclusion is derived from the claim that foreign law need no longer be pleaded as it is a matter of judicial notice. While the claim is not an inclusive statement of the law either of pleading or substantively, it may be adopted for the purposes of discussion. It remains the law however that where a party intends to invoke foreign law he must set out facts which show that foreign law is applicable and the law of what foreign jurisdiction will be relied on. It must be obvious that a defendant can not be expected to meet a claim that may be good somewhere without being apprised of where it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uppgren v. Executive Aviation Services, Inc.
...have reached a similar result. See Pittsburg, C. C. & S. L. Ry. Co. v. Grom, 142 Ky. 51, 133 S.W. 977 (1911); Goldberg v. American Airlines, 23 Misc.2d 215, 199 N.Y.S.2d 134 (1960); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.1968); see also Frumer and Friedman, supra, § 38.03, footnotes 4 and 5,......
-
George v. Douglas Aircraft Co.
...59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1962). The Special Term had dismissed the complaint, Goldberg v. American Airlines, Inc., 23 Misc.2d 215, 199 N.Y.S.2d 134 (Sup.Ct.1960), on the basis of New York law which it held to be applicable on the authority of Poplar v. Bourjois, Inc., 2......
-
Cousins v. Instrument Flyers, Inc.
...for the court to apply New York law. Prior to 1960, New York was a strict lex loci delictus state. In Goldberg v. American Airlines, Inc., 23 Misc.2d 215, 217, 199 N.Y.S.2d 134, 136, aff'd. 12 A.D.2d 906, 214 N.Y.S.2d 640), Mr. Justice Steuer said: "It is the place of injury that determines......
-
Siegel v. Braniff Airways Incorporated
...334 (1948); Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc., 2 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 970, 133 A.L.R. 255; Goldberg v. American Airlines, Inc., Supreme Court, New York County, 1960, Steuer, J., 23 Misc.2d 215, 199 N.Y.S.2d 134. The second and fifth causes of action in this complaint, insofar as defendant Lockhee......