Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc.

Decision Date03 May 1994
Citation417 Mass. 643,632 N.E.2d 832
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
Parties, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,020 Daniel COSME v. WHITIN MACHINE WORKS, INC., & Another. 1

Cynthia J. Cohen, Samuel M. Furgang, Boston, with her, for plaintiff.

Joseph D. Regan, Lowell, James P. Kerr, Cambridge, with him, for defendant.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

NOLAN, Justice.

This case presents the sole issue whether Connecticut's statute of repose should apply in the plaintiff's product liability action brought in a court of this Commonwealth. The Superior Court judge granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Connecticut statute applies to this action and bars the plaintiff's claim for relief. The plaintiff appealed and we granted his application for direct appellate review. We reverse the judgment, and remand this case for further proceedings. The few relevant facts follow.

The plaintiff, Daniel Cosme, at all relevant times was a resident of the Commonwealth, and was employed in Connecticut. On July 21, 1986, while in the course of his employment, he was injured while cleaning a machine at his place of employment. The machine which allegedly caused his injuries is a Whitin full roller card machine. The machine was designed and manufactured in 1939 by the defendant, Whitin Machine Works, Inc. (Whitin), then a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. The machine was delivered to the plaintiff's place of employment in 1939, and has remained there since.

The plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court on March 13, 1987. The plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by Whitin's negligent design and manufacture of the machine, failure to warn of the dangerous condition of the machine, and breach of express and implied warranties concerning the machine. After a period of discovery, Whitin moved the court for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's action is barred by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577a (a) (1993), 2 which provides in part that certain products liability action shall not be brought after ten years from the date that the product left the control of the defendant. The judge granted Whitin's motion, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that under Massachusetts choice-of-law rules, the Connecticut statute of repose applies.

We examine whether the ten-year repose provision of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577a (a), applies in the circumstances of this case.

Traditionally, in matters of tort, the courts of this Commonwealth apply the substantive laws of the jurisdiction wherein the tort occurred. See Cohen v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 389 Mass. 327, 333, 450 N.E.2d 581 (1983). Generally, however, Massachusetts courts will apply their own rules of procedure. Murphy v. Smith, 307 Mass. 64, 66, 29 N.E.2d 726 (1940). Where it is not clear that a rule of law is procedural in the Commonwealth for choice-of-law purposes, we take a functional approach in determining the choice-of-law issue, using established conflicts criteria and considerations. See Bushkin Assocs., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 393 Mass. 622, 631-636, 473 N.E.2d 662 (1985).

The Commonwealth considers statutes of limitations as procedural: "Massachusetts views statutes of limitation as relating to the remedy, and it applies its own law as the law of the forum." Wilcox v. Riverside Park Enters., Inc., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 419, 421, 487 N.E.2d 860 (1986), S.C., 399 Mass. 533, 505 N.E.2d 526 (1987), and cases cited. We have not determined whether statutes of repose are procedural with respect to choice of law. We have ruled in another context, however, that statutes of repose are distinguishable from statutes of limitation, in that they "completely eliminate[ ] a cause of action," McGuinness v. Cotter, 412 Mass. 617, 622, 591 N.E.2d 659 (1992), quoting Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701, 702, 437 N.E.2d 514 (1982), whereas statutes of limitation "[are] procedural measure[s] which 'normally govern[]the time within which legal proceedings must be commenced after the cause [s] of action accrue[] (emphasis supplied).' " McGuinness, supra 412 Mass. at 621, 591 N.E.2d 659, quoting Klein, supra. Because statutes of repose are not clearly procedural for choice of law purposes in the Commonwealth, we examine the issue using a functional approach.

In examining conflicts issues using a functional approach, "we have not elected by name any particular choice-of-law doctrine." Bushkin Assocs., Inc., supra 393 Mass. at 631, 473 N.E.2d 662. Rather, we consider choice-of-law issues "by assessing various choice-influencing considerations," id., including those provided in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971), and those suggested by various commentators. See id. at 631-632, 473 N.E.2d 662; Cohen, supra 389 Mass. at 336, 450 N.E.2d 581. We examine the present issue guided by the Restatement.

Section 145 of the Restatement 3 provides the general principle "applicable to all torts and to all issues in tort," id. at § 145 comment a, and § 146 of the Restatement 4 provides a principle applicable in issues concerning causes of action involving personal injury. 5 Both sections require an examination of the relevant issue in accordance with the principles provided in § 6 of the Restatement. 6

We begin by examining the contacts which Connecticut and Massachusetts have with the parties and the occurrence in this case. See id. at § 145(2). Connecticut is the place where the injury occurred, and the place of the plaintiff's employment. In addition, the plaintiff, after being injured, received compensation pursuant to Connecticut's compensation statute. Massachusetts is the plaintiff's place of residence, Whitin's principal place of business and former State of incorporation, and the State wherein the alleged conduct causing the plaintiff's injury occurred.

Under § 146, the law of Connecticut--as the "state where the injury occurred"--applies, unless Massachusetts has a "more significant relationship" to the parties and the occurrence under the considerations provided in § 6. We thus examine the various relevant considerations provided in § 6 as they relate to the issue at hand to determine whether Massachusetts has a more significant relationship.

We recognize the basic policies underlying the field of products liability. Generally, providing a cause of action for compensation of individuals injured is the policy behind products liability actions: "[P]ublic policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them ... and that the [user] of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection at the hands of someone, and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A comment c (1965), quoted in Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342, 354-355, 446 N.E.2d 1033 (1983). There exists a corresponding policy of holding accountable those whose defective products cause injuries: "Recognizing that the seller is in the best position to ensure product safety, the law of strict liability imposes on the seller a duty to prevent the release of 'any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer,' into the stream of commerce." Correia, supra at 355, 446 N.E.2d 1033, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra at § 402A(1).

The Legislature of Connecticut has chosen to limit the products liability cause of action to a period of ten years from the date that the product was released from the possession or control of a party. See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577a (a). The courts of Connecticut have recognized that this provision was intended to protect defendants, and presumably the courts of Connecticut, from "stale claims." See Daily v. New Britain Mach. Co., 200 Conn. 562, 583, 512 A.2d 893 (1986). Massachusetts has not limited products liability actions with a statute of repose, and it therefore has illustrated no similar policy of protecting defendants from claims for injuries caused by older products. We examine the relative interests of Connecticut and Massachusetts in applying their policies in the present case.

Connecticut has an obvious interest in having its law apply, as it is the place where the plaintiff's injury occurred. However, Connecticut's interest in protecting defendants from claims concerning older products is not as compelling in the circumstances as it would be if Whitin were a Connecticut business, and Connecticut's corresponding interest in protecting its courts from such claims is obviously not at stake. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court of Connecticut has ruled that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577a is procedural in nature: "Section 52-577a does not create a right of action in the product liability context. That right of action is created by the common law or the product liability act. Thus, § 52-577a must be considered procedural." Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (1989). Thus, Connecticut does not view Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577a as part of its substantive law, and it therefore likely has a diminished expectation of having it apply in other jurisdictions as part of its substantive law.

Massachusetts has a significant interest in seeing that its resident plaintiff be compensated, and that its resident defendant, Whitin, be held accountable for its conduct, which took place in Massachusetts, and which allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury. "[T]he fact that the domicil and place of business of [the plaintiff and the defendant] are grouped in a single state is an important factor to be considered in determining the state of the applicable law. The state where these contacts are grouped is particularly likely to be the state of the applicable law if either ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • Green v. Cosby, Civil Action No. 14–30211–MGM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • October 9, 2015
    ...considerations,’ ... including those provided in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971)." Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc. , 417 Mass. 643, 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Bushkin Assocs., Inc. v. Raytheon Co. , 393 Mass. 622, 473 N.E.2d 662, 66......
  • Targetsmart Holdings, LLC v. GHP Advisors, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-11365-DPW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • February 6, 2019
    ...this presumption may be overcome if another state has a more significant relationship to the case. See Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc. , 417 Mass. 643, 632 N.E.2d 832, 835 (1994) ; Dagi v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 352 F. Supp. 3d 116, 124, n. 6, 2018 WL 6506074 at *7 n. 6 (D. Mass. Dec. 11......
  • Davidson v. Cao, CIV.A. 00-11046-DPW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • April 11, 2002
    ...considerations,'" including those provided in the "Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971)." Cosme v. Whitin Machine Works, Inc., 417 Mass. 643, 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994); Continental Cablevision, Inc. v. Storer Broadcasting Company, 653 F.Supp. 451, 454 (D.Mass.1986); see Bushkin Ass......
  • Goldsmith v. Marsh USA, Inc. (In re Glasshouse Techs., Inc.), Case No. 14-41352-CJP
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • May 31, 2019
    ...to determine which state has the "most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties." Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc. , 417 Mass. 643, 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971) ). Section 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conf......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • DEFERRING TO FOREIGN COURTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...cases, Massachusetts typically applies the law of the forum where the harm occurred. Id. at 14 (citing Cosme v. Whitin Mach. Works, Inc., 632 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1994)). Nonetheless, Massachusetts no longer recognizes a strict lex locus delicti rule, having adopted a more "functional" approach......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT