Neumeier v. Keuhner
| Decision Date | 04 August 1970 |
| Citation | 313 N.Y.S.2d 468,63 Misc.2d 766 |
| Parties | Joan NEUMEIER, as Administratrix of the Estate of Aime Neumeier, Plaintiff, v. Irene KUEHNER, as Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur Kuehner, and CanadianNational Railway, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
The pertinent facts, insofar as the pending motions now before the Court are concerned, would not appear to be in serious dispute. On or about May 7, 1969, a collision occurred between the engine of a train owned and operated by Canadian National Railway Company and an automobile owned and being operated by one, Arthur Kuehner, at the Holloway Bay Road grade crossing in the Town of Sherkston, Province on Ontario, Canada. Aime Neumeier, plaintiff's intestate, was a passenger in the Kuehner vehicle at the time of the accident in which both the owner-driver and the passenger were instantly killed.
On the morning of the fatal day, Arthur Kuehner, a New York State resident operating his own automobile registered and insured in the State of New York, crossed the International border into Canada and stopped at the home of Aime Neumeier, who there resided with his wife, Joan Neumeier, a niece of Mr. Keuhner, and their children in the City of Ft. Erie, Ontario, Canada. The two men then proceeded in the Kuehner vehicle, being driven by Arthur Kuehner, destined for Long Beach, Ontario, Canada, where Mr. Kuehner owned certain real property on which were situated various cottages normally rented by him to summer vacationists. The ostensible purpose of the trip was to perform various preparatory work at the cottages for the coming rental season. It would also appear that there was to be no payment of consideration for the work to be performed by Mr. Neumeier.
While proceeding on the Holloway Road, the vehicle entered upon a railroad grade crossing where it came in collision with a west bound train owned and operated by Canadian National Railway Company, fatally injuring both the driver-owner, Kuehner and passenger, Neumeier.
The Canadian National Railway Company is a Canadian corporation operating primarily in Canada but authorized to do business in the State of New York. The train involved in the fatal accident, it would appear, commenced its trip at Ft. Erie, Ontario, Canada, and was destined to another point in the Province of Ontario, Canada, with all members of the train crew being Canadian domiciliaries.
The Kuehner vehicle was owned, registered and insured in New York State. Kuehner himself was a permanent resident of New York State although owning real property in Ontario, Canada.
Neumeier was a lifelong resident of Canada and employed in Canada. His wife, originally a New York resident, moved to Canada upon her marriage in 1960, having a status of a 'landed immigrant' and living in Ontario, Canada continuously to the time of the accident.
A wrongful death action has been commenced in this Court by the Neumeier Estate against the Kuehner Estate and Canadian National Railway Company, based upon negligence.
Defendant Keuhner Estate, by its answer has pleaded as an affirmative defense, (Paragraph 'Sixth'), the so-called vehicle guest statute enacted in the Province of Ontario, Canada, ), which provides, in substance, that the owner or operator of a vehicle is not liable to a gratuitous passenger or to such passenger's estate for injury or wrongful death arising out of an accident unless the operator of said vehicle was guilty of gross negligence.
Defendant, Canadian National Railway Company, by its answer has pleaded three affirmative defenses, (Paragraph 'Eighth', 'Ninth' and 'Tenth'), with reliance upon the aforementioned guest statute. In connection therewith, said defendant has served, pursuant to CPLR 4511(b), a Notice of Intention to Request Judicial Notice of Part X, Sect. 105 of the Highway Traffic Act of the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1960, as amended.
Plaintiff now moves this Court for dismissawl of the aforesaid affirmative defenses asserted by the respective defendants herein insofar as they are pleaded in reliance upon the cited guest statute of the Province of Ontario, contending said statutory provision to be in conflict with the law of this State and therefore constituting no valid defense to plaintiff's action herein.
Thus, presented to this Court is a choice-of-law problem in a case classification which precedent case law has acknowledged to be most troublesome, particularly in this age of automotive travel and transitory proclivities of the populus.
The latest authoritative consideration of the choice-of-law or conflicts problem, involving the applicability of a foreign guest statute, to which this Court has looked for guidance, is Tooker v. Lopez, 24 N.Y.2d 569, 301 N.Y.S.2d 519, 249 N.E.2d 394. The Tooker case involved the question of whether a State of Michigan 'guest statute' should govern a suit brought on behalf of a decedent, a New York domiciliary, killed in an automobile accident occurring in Michigan while riding as a passenger in an automobile which was being driven by a New York domiciliary and owned by the driver's father, also a New York resident, and which car was registered and insured in New York. In this four to three decision, the majority opinion was written by Judge Keating and joined in by Judge Bergan. Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Burke wrote separate concurring opinions with Juge Breitel writing a dissenting opinion in which Judges Scileppi and Jasen concurred.
After an extensive review and analysis of various keystone decisions on the subject, stemming from Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279, including Dym v. Gordon, 16 N.Y.2d 120, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463, 209 N.E.2d 792; Macey v. Rozbicki, 18 N.Y.2d 289, 274 N.Y.S.2d 591, 221 N.E.2d 380; Matter of Crichton, 20 N.Y.2d 124, 281 N.Y.S.2d 811, 228 N.E.2d 799; Matter of Clark, 21 N.Y.2d 478, 288 N.Y.S.2d 993, 236 N.E.2d 152, and Miller v. Miller, 22 N.Y.2d 12, 290 N.Y.S.2d 734, 237 N.E.2d 877, tracing the evolution of governing principles involving the conflict of law problem, from the rejected traditional lex loci delictus rule through the 'center of gravity' or 'grouping of contacts' and 'dominant control' doctrines, the majority opinions concluded, that, the so-called 'interest analysis' doctrine should prevail, and, that, the policy considerations which underlie the ostensibly conflicting laws should be determinative.
In its consideration of the Michigan guest statute, the majority observed, that, inasmuch as the statutory provision permitted recovery by guests for gross negligence, the purpose of the statute was for the prevention of fraudulent claims against local domestic insurers or the protection of local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Erie Coach Lines Co.
...that the Ontario statute was unavailable, moved to dismiss the affirmative defenses, and Supreme Court denied the motion (63 Misc.2d 766, 313 N.Y.S.2d 468 [1970] ). The Appellate Division reversed (37 A.D.2d 70, 322 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1971] ), and asked us if its order was properly made. We answ......
-
Neumeier v. Kuehner
...dismiss the affirmative defenses pleaded. The court at Special Term, holding the guest statute applicable, denied the motions (63 Misc.2d 766, 313 N.Y.S.2d 468) but, on appeal, a closely divided Appellate Division reversed and directed dismissal of the defenses (37 A.D.2d 70, 322 N.Y.S.2d 8......