Moats v. Metropolitan Bank of Lima

• Decision Date: 27 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-924,73-924
• Citation: 69 O.O.2d 323,40 Ohio St.2d 47,319 N.E.2d 603
• Parties: , 69 O.O.2d 323 MOATS, Admx., Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN BANK OF LIMA, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 47

40 Ohio St.2d 47

319 N.E.2d 603, 69 O.O.2d 323

MOATS, Admx., Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN BANK OF LIMA, Appellee.

No. 73-924.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 27, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

Where the Ohio administrator of the estate of an Ohio resident sues the Ohio executor of the estate of another Ohio resident in an Ohio court for damages for wrongful death, arising from an airplane crash which occurred in another state, the case is governed by the substantive law of Ohio.

This appeal arises out of an airplane crash which occurred in Pennsylvania on December 28, 1967. Plaintiff's decedent, John R. Moats, a passenger, and defendant's decedent, Raymond F. Pangle, the pilot, were killed. Both decedents were residents of Ohio, and the airplane was owned by an Ohio corporation and was regularly hangared in Ohio.

Appellant was appointed administratrix of the estate of John Moats, and brought an action for wrongful death against appellee, The Metropolitan Bank of Lima, executor of the estate of Raymond Pangle. Appellant did not contend that appellee's decedent was willful or wanton in his conduct, only that he was negligent in the operation of the airplane. Appellee answered by stating that appellant's decedent was a guest-passenger in the aircraft, and that the claim was therefore barred by virtue of R.C. 4561.151. ^*

Appellee thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court, and that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In rendering its judgment, the Court of Appeals held that the substantive law of Ohio was controlling under the facts presented.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of appellant's motion to certify the record.

Spangenberg, Shibley, Traci & Lancione, Robert A. Marcis, Cleveland, Meredith, Meredith, Tait & Basinger, and James E. Meredith, Lima, for appellant.

Hauxhurst, Sharp, Mollison & Gallagher, Michael R. Gallagher and William J. Novak, Cleveland, for appellee.

HERBERT, Justice.

The issue before us is whether Ohio or Pennsylvania substantive law should be applied under the facts above-stated.

Prior to this court's decisions in Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 193, 267 N.E.2d 405, and Schiltz v. Meyer (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 169, 280 N.E.2d 925, it was well established in Ohio that the substantive law of the place where the injury occurred was controlling in cases such as the one at bar. The rule of lex loci delicti prevailed. Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639; Collins v. McClure (1944), 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171; Ellis v. Garwood (1958), 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d 100.

However, in Fox, supra, a majority of the court announced that considerations of public policy should accompany the judicial decision making process in these types of conflict of laws cases, and that the rule of lex loci delicti would no longer serve to automatically determine which body of substantive law should govern.

In Schiltz v. Meyer, supra, the law enunciated by the majority in Fox was reaffirmed. Schiltz concerned an automobile collision which occurred in Ohio, and suit by a Kentucky plaintiff against a Kentucky defendant in an Ohio court. Although Ohio law was applied in Schiltz, it was noted that Ohio courts should no longer look solely to the doctrine of lex loco delicti in ascertaining which state's law should prevail. The fact that Ohio was the place of injury was not the single determining element which influenced the choice of Ohio law in Schiltz. In addition to that consideration was the plaintiff's selection of this state as the forum, and the interest possessed by Ohio in the advancement of its existing legislative policy.

In the instant case, Pennsylvania has little interest in having her law applied. Both decedents were residents of Ohio, the aircraft was owned by an Ohio...