Price v. Litton Systems, Inc.
| Citation | 784 F.2d 600 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-4004,85-4004 |
| Parties | 42 UCC Rep.Serv. 1614 Don L. PRICE, Administrator of the Estate of Lee Allan Price, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Yuson DONALDSON, Administrator of the Estate of Richard Doyle Donaldson, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr., Ferrell & Hubbard, Jackson, Miss., Nomberg & McCabe, Daleville, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Jack J. Hall, Joseph W. Buffington, McDaniel, Hall, Parsons, Birmingham, Ala., John M. Roach, Paul M. Neville, Roach, Dorizas & Neville, Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before GEE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and FISHER *, District Judge.
Yusun Donaldson, administratrix of the estate of Richard Doyle Donaldson, and Don L. Price, administrator of the estate of Lee Allan Price, appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation ("ITT"). On appeal, Donaldson and Price argue (1) that the district court erred in applying Alabama substantive law in this diversity action, (2) that the district court erred in applying the two-year statute of limitations contained in the Alabama wrongful death statute, and (3) that the district court erroneously failed to apply a separate conflict of laws analysis to the breach of warranty claims in this action. This Court affirms the district court's application of Alabama substantive law to the negligence and strict liability in tort claims in this action and their dismissal under the Alabama two year limitations period. The district court, however, erroneously failed to apply a separate conflict of laws analysis to the breach of warranty claims presented. This Court remands this case for that determination.
On July 14, 1978, Richard Doyle Donaldson, an instructor pilot, and Lee Allan Price, a warrant officer, were members of the flight crew of a helicopter participating in a night vision goggles training mission at a training site associated with Fort Rucker, Alabama. All crew members were wearing night vision goggles manufactured by ITT. 1 The helicopter crashed killing all aboard. The administrators of the estates of Price and Donaldson contend that the helicopter crashed as a direct result of defects in the night vision goggles and the night vision image tubes, both of which were manufactured by ITT.
Yusun Donaldson, administratrix of the estate of Richard Doyle Donaldson, and Don L. Price, administrator of the estate of Lee Allan Price, brought separate wrongful death actions to recover for the deaths of their decedents. Both complaints were filed in Mississippi state district court and both complaints named Litton Systems, Inc. and ITT as defendants. The complaints alleged separate counts of breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability in tort for the design, manufacture and sale of a defective product. The complaints were filed pursuant to the Mississippi wrongful death statute, Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-7-13 (1972).
Litton and ITT removed both actions to federal district court based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. Since both decedents died in the same helicopter crash, and since both complaints alleged the same theories of recovery, the actions were consolidated for purposes of trial.
Both Litton and ITT moved for summary judgment on the ground that Alabama substantive law governed the wrongful death actions. ITT and Litton contended that Alabama treated the limitations period contained in the Alabama wrongful death statute as part of the substantive right to recovery. According to the defendants, Mississippi would apply the Alabama two year limitations period and the plaintiffs' claims would be time barred. Over the plaintiffs' opposition, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, determining that Alabama substantive law, including the two year limitations period in the Alabama wrongful death statute, governed the action. Price v. Litton Systems, Inc., 607 F.Supp. 30 (S.D.Miss.1984). Price and Donaldson appeal only from the judgment in favor of ITT. 2
This Court concludes that the district court properly determined that Alabama law governed the negligence and strict liability in tort claims in this action. The district court, however, should have conducted a separate inquiry to determine which state's law governed the breach of warranty claims. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of this opinion.
In this diversity action, this Court is bound to apply the law of the forum state, including that state's conflict of laws rules. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). In this case, therefore, this Court applies Mississippi conflict of laws rules.
The parties to this action agree that the conflict of laws decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Craft, 211 So.2d 509 (Miss.1968), provides this Court's starting point. The parties disagree, however, on what outcome properly ensues from application of the "center of gravity" test enunciated in Mitchell. In Mitchell, which was also a wrongful death action, the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted the "center of gravity" test or the "most substantial contacts" rule as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. 3 That court quoted with approval sections 175, 145 and 6 of the Restatement.
Section 175 provides the basic rule for wrongful death actions:
Sec. 175. Right of Action for Death.
In an action for wrongful death, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, in which event the local law of the other state will be applied.
Mitchell, 211 So.2d at 515 (emphasis in Mitchell ).
In Mitchell, liability was predicated on a negligence theory. Thus, the Mississippi Supreme Court also relied on section 245, which states the general rule in tort cases:
Sec. 145. The General Principle.
(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, as to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in Sec. 6.
(2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of Sec. 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
The contacts articulated in section 145 are to be weighed according to the principles set forth in section 6, which provide basic policy considerations to aid a court in determining the appropriate law to be applied to any particular issue:
Sec. 6. Choice of Law Principles:
(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.
(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and
(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
It is this framework that this Court must apply in determining the appropriate law to be applied in the instant case. See Davis v. National Gypsum Co., 743 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.1984); Ramsay v. Boeing Co., 432 F.2d 592 (5th Cir.1970). Initially, however, this Court must identify those states having an interest in this litigation and then isolate those contacts that are relevant to the present inquiry.
At least six states have contacts with this litigation. ITT is incorporated in Delaware, and has its principal place of business in New York. 4 The night vision goggles and night vision image tubes were manufactured at an ITT facility in Virginia. They were designed, however, at an ITT facility in California. The United States Army may have negotiated the contract to purchase these ITT products in Virginia, New Jersey, or New York, but it is undisputed that the Army and ITT executed the contract in New Jersey. The Army took delivery of the products in California. The night vision goggles were then distributed by the army to its various bases.
The accident occurred in Alabama on a training mission not scheduled to go beyond the borders of Alabama. Prior to the accident, both decedents, Donaldson and Price, were stationed at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Moreover, Yusun Donaldson also made her residence in Alabama and was still an Alabama resident at the time this complaint was filed. Yusun Donaldson, however, presently makes her permanent residence in Texas, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huss v. Gayden
...occurred, the domicile or residence of the parties, and the place where the parties' relationship is centered. Price v. Litton Sys., Inc., 784 F.2d 600, 603 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Mitchell, 211 So.2d at The defendants reside in Tennessee, and the parties' relationship was centered in Memphi......
-
Recovery v. Commerzbank Ag
...of section 6, which provide basic policy considerations to aid the court in determining the appropriate law. See Price v. Litton Sys., Inc., 784 F.2d 600, 603 (5th Cir.1986); Estate of Pigorsch ex rel. Martin v. York College, 734 F.Supp.2d 704, 712 (N.D.Iowa Aug.18, 2010); cf. ASARCO, 382 B......
-
Zermeno v. Mcdonnell Douglas Corp.
...factors support the application of Mexican tort law to this case. The case law supports this conclusion. In Price v. Litton Sys., Inc., 784 F.2d 600 (5th Cir.1986), the Fifth Circuit applied section 145 in a tort action in finding that the state where the accident occurred had a more signif......
-
IN RE AIRCRASH DISASTER NEAR ROSELAWN, IND. ON OCT. 31, 1994, 95 C 4593. MDL No. 1070.
...at 615. In cases involving wholly intrastate air travel courts have rejected the fortuity argument. See, e.g., Price v. Litton Systems, Inc., 784 F.2d 600, 605 (5th Cir.1986) (rejecting the fortuity argument where the crash occurred in the state where the decedents were stationed and the fl......
-
Colorado's Revived Collateral Attack Statute
...Const., art. III. 47. Colo. Const., art. VI, § 21. 48. See, e.g., Davis v. Mills, 194 U.S. 451, 454 (1904); Price v. Litton Systems, Inc., 784 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1986); Central States S.E. and S.W. Areas Pension Fund v. Aalco Express Co., 592 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.Mo. 1984); Hines v. Tenneco Che......