Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1961 |
| Citation | 199 F. Supp. 539 |
| Parties | Marilyn W. PEARSON, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of John S. Pearson, deceased, and Marilyn W. Pearson, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Frank G. Sterritte, Speiser, Quinn & O'Brien, New York City, for plaintiff; F. M. DeRosa, William F. X. Geoghan, Jr., and Howard G. Law, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for defendant; William J. Junkerman, L. Anthony Zega, New York City, of counsel.
The plaintiff sues for damages for her husband's death in the crash of the defendant's airplane on which he was a passenger, at Nantucket, Massachusetts on August 15, 1958. The legal basis for her claim is the Massachusetts Wrongful Death Statute.1 That statute limits the amount recoverable in such a case to a "sum of not less than two thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars, to be assessed with reference to the degree of culpability of the defendant or of his or its servants or agents * * *." Despite this, the plaintiff asks damages of $600,000 for the allegedly wrongful death of her husband.
The plaintiff is now and at the time of her husband's death he and she were citizens and domiciliaries of New York. The defendant is a Massachusetts corporation. This court's jurisdiction rests on the diverse citizenship of the parties.
Two questions have arisen: first, is the amount recoverable by this plaintiff limited to $15,000?; second, if it is not, is the amount recoverable to be measured by "the degree of culpability of the defendant" as provided in the Massachusetts statute, or by the degree of "pecuniary injuries, resulting from the decedent's death, to the person or persons, for whose benefit the action is brought," as provided by the law of New York?2
In this diversity case, this court sits as another state court of New York3 and must apply New York's conflicts law as announced by its highest court.4
In Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines,5 a case arising out of the same crash involved here, the New York Court of Appeals in a considered dictum expressed by the Chief Judge and concurred in by three Associate Judges said: "For our courts to be limited by Massachusetts' damage ceiling (at least as to our own domiliciaries) is so completely contrary to our public policy that we should refuse to enforce it." It was further said that if Kilberg's claim which, like this, was filed under the Massachusetts statute, were amended to seek more than $15,000 it could "be enforced, if the proof so justifies, without regard to the $15,000 limit." That dictum, so far as appears, has not been repudiated or modified. I believe, therefore, that it states the law which, if this suit were pending in a New York court, that court would apply. Accordingly, since I believe I am required to apply it here, I hold that the amount recoverable by this plaintiff is not limited to $15,000.
The New York Court of Appeals in Kilberg did not consider the second question which has arisen here. Accordly, this court must determine how that court, if it had considered that question, would have answered it. For the reasons that follow, I think it would have answered by saying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.
...allow or that New York will substitute a wholly new standard of liability and damages, as the district judge here thought, 199 F.Supp. 539, 540 (S.D. N.Y.1961), a view which the majority adopts without explanation other than that in the original dissenting opinion,1 the result is for New Yo......
-
Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 297
..."by New York's standard of the pecuniary damage resulting to the beneficiaries from the death." Judge McGohey's opinion is reported at 199 F.Supp. 539. Later, in denying defendant's motion to strike prejudgment interest, he wrote a memorandum decision and order reported at D.C., 201 F.Supp.......
-
Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.
...been a New York resident and his relationship with the defendant airline had originated in this state. See, also, Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., D.C., 199 F.Supp. 539. Motion to strike pre-judgment interest denied, D.C., 201 F.Supp. 45; judgment for the administratrix reversed and rem......
-
Tramontana v. SA Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense
...149-256, S.D.N.Y., grew out of the same accident as Kilberg, and it was initially consolidated for trial with Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 199 F.Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff'd, 309 F.2d 553, 92 A.L.R.2d 1162 (2d Cir. 1962) (en banc), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 912, 83 S.Ct. 726, 9 L.Ed......