La Prelle v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
Decision Date | 01 August 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 3425.,3425. |
Citation | 85 F. Supp. 182 |
Parties | LA PRELLE v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Wm. I. Robinson, of Adams, Jones, Robinson & Manka, Wichita, Kansas (Arnote, Arnote & Bratton, of McAlester, Oklahoma, on brief), for plaintiff.
Wm. Tinker, of Porter, McDonald & Tinker, Wichita, Kansas, for defendant.
The present issue, raised by a motion of the defendant to strike, is whether, in a diversity case, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, brought by a widow to recover for the wrongful death of her husband, the lex loci or the lex fori controls. The Oklahoma statutes1 are pleaded. They are similar to the Kansas statutes2 in most respects, the difference important here being that under the Kansas statute "the damages cannot exceed fifteen thousand dollars" while under the Oklahoma statute there is no limitation as to the amount of recovery.
The suit is against a Kansas corporation. The plaintiff, now a citizen of Florida, formerly a citizen of Oklahoma, seeks recovery for herself and minor child in the amount of $100,000.00 for the alleged wrongful death of her husband in Oklahoma, caused by the crash of an airplane made by the defendant which, it is alleged, had been constructed in a defective manner and of weak, inferior and unsuitable material. This court has jurisdiction.
Defendant, correctly pointing out upon brief that "the doctrine of the Erie case3 applies to cases under the diversity jurisdiction,"4 urges that "the amount of damages which may be recovered so pertains to the remedy that, when an action is brought in Kansas, the defendant is entitled to the restrictions placed upon the amount of recovery by the law of the forum." It is argued that since it is against "the public policy" of Kansas to allow more than $15,000.00 for a wrongful death, recovery of a larger amount, although permitted under the law of the state where the death was caused, should not be allowed in a Kansas court.
The Court of Appeals for this (the Tenth) Circuit has applied the same rule, pointing out in W. W. Clyde & Co. v. Dyess9.
Defendant cites several cases in which the Supreme Court of Kansas declined to enforce statutes of other states, which were penal in nature. One is Dale v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Co.,10 in which a statute of the Territory of New Mexico, Comp. Laws 1884, § 2308, provided that a corporation should "forfeit and pay * * * $5,000" in connection with certain deaths. The court was "constrained to hold" it would not undertake to enforce that statute because it was "penal in part, and so dissimilar in principle from the law of our own state." (See also cases cited there involving statutes of other states penal in nature). Another is Matheson v. Kansas City Ft. S. & M. Railroad Co.11 in which a Missouri statute, Mo. R.S.A. § 3652, quite similar to the New Mexico statute, was also held to be of a penal nature and hence not enforcible in Kansas. The court pointed out in that case, however, that, "Upon the grounds of comity, a cause of action arising in one state under a statute may be asserted in another, where the latter gives the same right of action, and there is a substantial similarity in the statutes of the two states." 61 Kan. loc. cit. 668, 60 P. loc. cit. The third12 merely held that an action in Kansas for a wrongful death occasioned in another state or territory "is encumbered with all the limitations and burdens which may have been imposed by the statutes of the state where the right of action was created." In the fourth case cited13 the earlier three were reviewed and the court held that a plaintiff, who, by his pleading, waived any claim for exemplary damages (which could have been made under the Missouri statute) had placed himself "in the same attitude in which a party would come if the statute authorized compensatory damages only, and we see no reason why he may not, with as much justice and consistency, maintain his action as if the statute made no provision for other than actual damages." 87 Kan. loc. cit. 174, 123 P. loc. cit. 733.
The precise question under consideration does not seem to have been passed upon by the Supreme Court of Kansas. However, in Roseberry v. Scott14 it quoted with approval 15 C.J. 1181, 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 545, to the effect that the courts of one state, under the principles of comity, "will enforce rights arising in other states, unless recognition thereof would be contrary to the laws or public policy of the state in which such enforcement is sought", and allowed the recovery of punitive damages on a cause of action which arose in Missouri inasmuch as such damages could have been recovered on a similar cause of action arising in Kansas. In that case section 198 from Minor on Conflict of Laws was quoted:
120 Kan. loc. cit. 580, 244 P. loc. cit. 1065.
In Pool v. Day...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forsyth v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
...law of the place of injury to the substantive rights of the parties." The Kansas court also cited, with approval, La Prelle v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 85 F.Supp. 182 (D.Kan.1949). In La Prelle, a citizen of Florida brought a diversity action in the Kansas district court under an Oklahoma statu......
-
Kent v. THE KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, 6593.
...& Co. Express, 87 Kan. 164, 123 P. 729, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 1095, the Supreme Court of Kansas, as pointed out in La Prelle v. Cessna Aircraft Co., D.C., 85 F.Supp. 182, 185, took the view that the pleader, having waived exemplary damages recoverable under the Missouri act, had thereby placed h......
-
McDaniel v. Sinn
...citizenship, law of state where wrong occurred determined whether plaintiff sustained legal injury.' See also La Prelle v. Cessna Aircraft Co., (District of Kansas) 85 F.Supp. 182. In Koster v. Matson, 139 Kan. 124, 30 P.2d 107, the action was one to recover for personal injuries sustained ......