Hawley v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 78-1848

• Decision Date: 10 July 1980
• Docket Number: No. 78-1848,78-1848
• Citation: 625 F.2d 991
• Parties: Leslie M. HAWLEY, as Executrix of the Estate of Michael A. Hawley, and Leslie M. Hawley, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Continental Motors Corporation, and Teledyne-Continental Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 991

625 F.2d 991

Leslie M. HAWLEY, as Executrix of the Estate of Michael A Hawley, and Leslie M. Hawley, Individually Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Continental Motors Corporation and Teledyne-Continental Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1848.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 23, 1980.

Decided July 10, 1980.

David Jaroslawicz of Julien, Schlesinger & Finz, P. C., New York City (R. Daniel Lykins, of Jones, Schroer, Rice & Bryan, Topeka, Kan., with him on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Martin W. Bauer, Wichita, Kan. (William L. Oliver, Jr., Wichita, Kan., with him on brief) of Martin, Pringle, Fair, Davis & Oliver, Wichita, Kan., for defendant-appellee Beech Aircraft Corp.

Don M. Jackson, of Jackson & Sherman, P. C., Kansas City, Mo. (John Harl Campbell and Lindsay K. McFerrin, of Jackson & Sherman, P. C., Kansas City, Mo., and Charles S. Fisher, Jr., Topeka, Kan., with him on brief), for defendants-appellees Teledyne-Continental Motors, and Continental Motors Corp.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, and HOLLOWAY and McKAY, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal presents a choice-of-law question. Plaintiff brought suit for wrongful death based on diversity of citizenship in the district court for the district of Kansas almost two years after the death of her husband. She seeks recovery from the manufacturers of the airplane in which her husband was killed, Beech Aircraft Corporation and Teledyne Industries, Inc., on the theories of strict liability, breach of warranty and negligence. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss finding that the Kansas "borrowing statute," Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-516, required application of California's one-year limitations period for wrongful death. Plaintiff's action was, therefore, barred.

At the time of the fatal airplane crash, plaintiff and her husband resided in California, where he was stationed on military duty. The fatal flight originated and crashed in California. The allegedly defective aircraft had been maintained at Edwards Air Force Base in California where it was used for training. Therefore, any pilot error or improper maintenance contributing to the crash would have occurred in California.

The offending aircraft was purchased from the manufacturer, Beech Aircraft Corporation, more than ten years before the accident. Beech is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas. The engines, fuel system and fuel pump, listed by plaintiff as "particularly" related to the cause of the crash, were produced as components by Teledyne Industries. Teledyne is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. The decedent's will was probated and proceedings on his estate were conducted in Ohio, where he and the plaintiff were domiciled at the time of his death. The plaintiff moved to Florida some time after the accident, and instituted this suit from there.

In a well-reasoned, detailed opinion, the district court explained that under traditional Kansas law the borrowing statute commands application of the statute of limitations of the locus delicti, here California. California's limitation period for wrongful death is one year. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340.2. The court went further to conclude that even were Kansas to adopt a more modern choice-of-law test, Kansas would not be found to have the most significant interest in this litigation. Plaintiff may not, therefore, benefit by the two-year Kansas statute of limitations. Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513. The district court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the doctrine of renvoi would produce a different result. Finally, the district court found Kansas' borrowing statute to be constitutional as applied to bar plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff challenges each of the conclusions reached by the district court.

The Kansas borrowing statute provides:

Where the cause of action has arisen in another state or country and by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose an action cannot be maintained thereon by reason of lapse of time, no action can be maintained thereon in this state except in favor of one who is a resident of this state and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.

Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-516. Lex loci delicti is the prevailing rule in Kansas for determining where a cause of action arose. See Green v. Kensinger, 199 Kan. 220, 429 P.2d 95, 98-99 (1967); McDaniel v. Sinn, 194 Kan. 625, 400 P.2d 1018 (1965); Bruner v. Martin, 76 Kan. 862, 93 P. 165 (1907). ¹ According to plaintiff, this rule is archaic and should be abandoned in favor of a "significant contacts" test. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971).

Plaintiff contends...