Satchwill v. VOLLRATH COMPANY
| Decision Date | 19 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 66-C-55.,66-C-55. |
| Citation | 293 F. Supp. 533 |
| Parties | Mary Ann SATCHWILL, as Administratrix of the Estate of David L. Satchwill, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The VOLLRATH COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Warshafsky, Rotter & Tarnoff, by Ted M. Warshafsky, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Kivett & Kasdorf, by Alan M. Clack, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This is an action by the administratrix of the estate of David E. Satchwill to recover for the latter's wrongful death. The case is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to have the court apply the Ohio wrongful death statutes to damage issues, and the law of Wisconsin to issues of liability.
For the purpose of this motion the parties have stipulated to the following facts: the decedent, his heirs, and the plaintiff were and are domiciled in Ohio; the defendant is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal and only place of manufacture in Wisconsin; the decedent was temporarily at the defendant's factory in Wisconsin at the time of his death to supervise the installation of and give practical operating instructions concerning a hydroform press, manufactured by the decedent's employer in Ohio; the injury and the resultant death occurred in Wisconsin; the decedent was apparently killed when a brass ring, which had been installed in the hydroform press after its delivery to Wisconsin, broke and struck the decedent; this ring was manufactured in Wisconsin; the sales contract between the defendant and the decedent's employer was made in Wisconsin and was to be performed in Wisconsin; and the employment contract between the decedent and his employer was made in Ohio.
Since jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, this court is bound to apply the law which a Wisconsin court would have applied had this suit been brought in a state court. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487 (1938). This includes the application of Wisconsin conflict of law rules. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941).
The traditional Wisconsin choice of law rule with respect to wrongful death actions is that such actions are governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the tort was committed. White v. Minn. St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 147 Wis. 141, 133 N.W. 148 (1911); Anderson v. Miller Scrap Iron Co., 176 Wis. 521, 187 N.W. 746 (1922).
The Wisconsin supreme court, however, has been a leader in adopting the relatively new "center of gravity" approach to conflict problems. See Wilcox v. Wilcox, 26 Wis.2d 617, 133 N.W.2d 408 (1965); Heath v. Zellmer, 35 Wis.2d 578, 151 N.W.2d 664 (1967); Zelinger v. State Sand & Gravel Co., 38 Wis.2d 98, 156 N.W.2d 466 (1968); Conklin v. Horner, 38 Wis.2d 468, 157 N.W.2d 579 (1968); and Urhammer v. Olson, 39 Wis.2d 447, 159 N.W.2d 688 (1968).
While it is true that the "center of gravity" approach has not yet been applied by the Wisconsin court in a wrongful death action, this approach is not without precedent in other jurisdictions. See e. g., Long v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 16 N.Y.2d 337, 266 N.Y.S. 2d 513, 213 N.E.2d 796 (1965); Fabricius v. Horgen, 257 Iowa 268, 132 N.W.2d 410 (1965).
Ohio provides that the recovery shall be for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, the children, and other next of kin of the decedent. Page's Ohio Rev.Code Anno. § 2125.02. These beneficiaries are to allocate the money between themselves, and if they are unable to do so, the court will make an equitable distribution. Id. § 2125.03. Wisconsin, on the other hand, provides that the recovery is for the surviving spouse and minor children, if any. Wis.Stat. § 895.04 (1965). If minor children are present, the court determines their share of recovery.
The policies behind these provisions, however, lead clearly to the conclusion that Ohio is the more concerned state. Since all the heirs of the decedent are Ohio citizens, Ohio has the greater interest in the resolution of this issue. It is of relatively less concern to Wisconsin how any potential recovery is distributed. Ohio law will therefore apply as to distribution to beneficiaries.
With respect to the issue of which state's liability rules apply, it is clear that Wisconsin liability rules are applicable. Notwithstanding the fact that the allegedly defective hydroform press was manufactured in Ohio, there is no Ohio defendant being sued, and that state has relatively little right to have its liability rules applied in this case. On the other hand, Wisconsin's contacts with this issue are numerous and qualitatively significant; Wisconsin is the primarily concerned jurisdiction.
The Ohio constitution forecloses limitation on the damages recoverable for wrongful death (Ohio Const. Art. 1, § 19a), while the Wisconsin statute limits recovery to $22,500, plus small additional amounts under specified circumstances. Wis.Stat. § 895.04 (1965). While the Wisconsin legislature has increased those limits to $35,000, effective January 7, 1968, Wis. Session Laws, 1967, c. 267, this increase is inapplicable to the case at bar.
Both Wisconsin and Ohio have formidable contacts with the accident. The defendant is a Wisconsin corporation. The accident and death occurred here while the decedent was temporarily in Wisconsin to supervise the installation of the defendant's new machine. The brass ring which allegedly broke and struck the decedent was manufactured in Wisconsin; and the sales contract between the decedent's employer and the defendant was made in Wisconsin to be performed here. Further, Wisconsin is the forum state. The Ohio contacts are as follows: The decedent, his heirs, and the plaintiff were and are domiciliaries of Ohio; the decedent was employed by an Ohio company; and the hydroform press that the decedent was operating at the time of his death was manufactured in Ohio.
There is also a significant qualitative difference between the policies behind the Ohio and Wisconsin damage provisions. The Wisconsin policy behind limited liability in wrongful death cases is to protect Wisconsin defendants from large awards in death cases. Ohio, on the other hand, constitutionally prohibits wrongful death limitations; the policy behind that type of provision is to allow full recovery, regardless of the possibility of a high verdict. If Ohio law applies, a Wisconsin defendant will be subjected to a potential liability beyond that to which his own legislature has seen fit to subject him. If the Wisconsin provision applies, the Ohio heirs will be held to a recovery below that permitted under their constitution.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that both states have significant contacts with this particular issue, and both states have conflicting policies that they believe will be furthered by the application of their own law. This conflict is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1997 -NMCA- 103, Estate of Gilmore
...(E.D.Pa.1979) (applying Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules; considering domicile of beneficiaries and decedent); Satchwill v. Vollrath Co., 293 F.Supp. 533, 535 (E.D.Wis.1968) (applying Wisconsin choice-of-law rules; considering domicile of beneficiaries); Speiser § 13:25, at 75 & n. 72; see ......
-
Tiernan v. Westext Transport, Inc.
...Turner v. Capitol Motors Trans. Co., 214 F. Supp. 545 (D.Me.1963), Duffy v. Currier, 291 F.Supp. 810 (D.Minn.1968), Satchwill v. Vollrath, 293 F.Supp. 533 (E.D.Wis.1968). Instead the court has decided to analyze this case under the Woodward standard and in the light of the materials upon wh......
-
Shenandoah v. City of Philadelphia
...an independent inquiry, and, where appropriate, a different result. Griffith v. United Air Lines, supra. Accord, Satchwill v. Vollrath Co., 293 F.Supp. 533 (E.D.Wis.1968) (following the Restatement approach in an action for wrongful death, lex fori governed as to liability and damages but l......
-
Caccamo's Estate, In re
...v. Pan Amer. World Airways, Supra; Farber v. Smolack, Supra, 20 N.Y.2d 198, 204, 282 N.Y.S.2d 248, 252, 229 N.E.2d 36, 39; Satchwill v. Vollrath, D.C., 293 F.Supp. 533; Gore v. Northeast Airlines, 2 Cir., 373 F.2d 717). When the beneficiaries of the recovery are residents of different state......