Dindo v. Whitney, 7548.
| Citation | 429 F.2d 25 |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7548.,7548. |
| Parties | Howard G. DINDO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Harold O. WHITNEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Roger B. Phillips, Concord, with whom Maynard, Dunn & Phillips, Concord, was on brief, for appellant.
John E. Gormley, Lancaster, with whom Gormley & Calamari, Lancaster, was on brief, for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, a resident of Vermont, and defendant, a resident of New Hampshire, agreed to go on a hunting trip in northern Maine. Plaintiff drove from his home to defendant's, and later, plaintiff driving defendant's car, they proceeded through the Province of Quebec en route to Maine. While in Canada they went off the road. Plaintiff brought a diversity action in the District Court for the District of New Hampshire for negligence, claiming that defendant physically interfered with the steering wheel. Under Quebec law the statute of limitations had run at the time of suit, whereas the New Hampshire and Vermont periods for a personal injury suit had not ended. Defendant pleaded the Quebec statute and the court, without opinion, dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals.
In Dupuis v. Woodward, 1952, 97 N.H. 351, 88 A.2d 177, the New Hampshire court, in a similar automobile tort case, held that the action was barred by the Quebec statute of limitations, which decision — if still viable — indicates affirmance here. We conclude that Clark v. Clark, 1966, 107 N.H. 351, 222 A.2d 205, has implicitly overruled Dupuis insofar as that case suggests a different result here.
In Clark, a New Hampshire couple, driving from their home to another part of New Hampshire, were passing through Vermont, when they had an accident. Mrs. Clark sued Mr. Clark for injuries allegedly caused by his negligent driving. Under Vermont law a guest could not recover unless he could prove gross negligence; in New Hampshire simple negligence was enough. The New Hampshire court held that the New Hampshire rule was to be applied since New Hampshire, not Vermont, had the primary interest in determining whether liability as between its citizens should be limited by a guest statute. In so holding, the court took a considered and substantial step, abandoning the "vested rights" view of conflict of laws problems, which, in tort cases, relied principally on the "place of the wrong," in favor of an ad hoc approach based on various policy considerations.
Viewing the considerations set forth in Clark, we are satisfied that the New Hampshire court would apply the New Hampshire statute of limitations in the instant case. The parties involved have only the most fortuitous relation to Quebec. Quebec's only interests underlying its statute of limitations are to protect its own citizens, and possibly its own courts, from "stale" claims. Application of the Quebec limitation period here furthers neither Quebec interest, but would frustrate New Hampshire's interests to some degree, for New Hampshire has said that its citizens should be suable and its courts open for a period long enough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
...of Law (2d ed. 1962) § 160 at 430, and this decade has seen the beginnings of a judicial shift away from the rule. See Dindo v. Whitney, 429 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1970); Horton v. Jessie, 423 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1970); Farrier v. May Dept. Stores Co., 357 F.Supp. 190 (D.D.C.1973); Klondike Helic......
-
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
...substantive issue, and the federal courts in this circuit saw the applicability of Clark to such a question. See Dindo v. Whitney, 429 F.2d 25, 26 (1st Cir.1970); Seymour v. Parke, Davis & Co., 294 F.Supp. 1257, 1263 The answer is that the Gordon court ignored Clark in holding limitations t......
-
Henry v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
...protecting Quebec citizens and the Quebec courts from excessive and tardy litigation, i. e., stale claims.16 In accord is Dindo v. Whitney, 429 F.2d 25 (1 Cir. 1970). This Quebec "protective" policy outlook is further evidenced in that Quebec courts are required to dismiss an action on the ......
-
Gordon v. Kramer
...(1966) was decided before Clark v. Clark, supra, and its viability in light of the Clark case has been questioned. See, Dindo v. Whitney, 429 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1970). Dym v. Gordon, 16 N.Y.2d 120, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463, 209 N.E.2d 792 (1965) has been overruled by Tooker v. Lopez, supra, accordin......