Opinion
C.A. No. 98C-10-344-CHT.
December 1, 1999.
January 1, 2000.
ORDER
This the 11th day of January, 2000, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion in Limine on Choice of Law and the record in this case, it appears that:
1. On September 26, 1997, the parties, all Delaware residents, were involved in an auto accident in the state of Maryland, at Delaney Road and U.S. Route 40 in Elkton, Maryland. The Plaintiffs brought suit in this Court alleging that they suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's negligence. The Defendant alleged that it was the Plaintiff Thomas who was at fault and also filed a counterclaim for contribution as to the claims of the Talib plaintiffs, the passengers in the Plaintiffs' vehicle. Both vehicles were registered in Delaware, and, it appears that all medical expenses and related losses incurred by all the Plaintiffs were paid in accordance with the Delaware No-fault Statute, 21 Del. C. § 2118.
2. The Talib Plaintiffs contend that Maryland law governs this case because the accident took place there. The Defendant seeks a ruling that Delaware law applies.
3. In deciding which state's law should govern, the applicable rule is the "most significant relationship" test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, §§ 6, 145-46 (1971). See also Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wooters, Del. Super., C.A. No. 93C-02-029, Bifferato, J. (Jan. 31, 1996) (citing Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38 (1991)). Under Section 145, a court will apply the law of the state where the injury occurred unless another state has a more significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties in light of the principles set forth in Section 6 of the Restatements. Section 6 lists the broader philosophical concerns driving the resolution of choice of law issues. However, and for present purposes, Section 145 further suggests the inquiring court look specifically at the following factors in addressing the factors reviewed in Section 6:
The factors listed in Section 6 are: a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, b) the relevant policies of the forum, c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, d) the protection of justified expectations, e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
a) the place where the injury occurred, b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, c) the domicile, 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.
4. The "most significant relationship" test is a flexible doctrine, which considers the facts of each case. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wooters, Del. Super., C.A. No. 93C-02-029, Bifferato, J. (Jan. 21, 1996). The test does not merely measure the interest of the two sides and apply the law of the jurisdiction with the most contacts, but rather evaluates the quality of the contact according to their relative importance with respect to a particular issue. Id. It is with these principles in mind that the facts of this case are reviewed.
5. First, the Plaintiffs application of Maryland law would serve no purpose recognized under Delaware law. The Plaintiffs seek to apply Maryland law because it would permit the introduction of special damages into evidence (i.e., lost wages and medical expenses) which were already paid. Under Delaware law they would be barred from doing so by 21 Del. C. § 2118 (h).
6. Furthermore, the application of Maryland law would unfairly alter the parties' substantive legal boundaries. The courts in Maryland recognize the doctrine of contributory negligence, which could make Plaintiff Thomas responsible for the injuries suffered by the other parties, if any, but bar him from recovery on his claim. Delaware is a comparative negligence state where a jury would be able to assess the different degrees of fault and apportion liability as well as damages accordingly.
7. Second, Maryland's interest in this case is de minimis. There is no compelling issue of Maryland public policy at stake here. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Lake, Del. Supr., 594 A.2d 38 (1991). The parties are not residents of Maryland. The cars involved in the accident were not registered in Maryland. The only connection with Maryland is that the accident occurred there. Nor have the Plaintiffs articulated any other compelling rationale, philosophy or policy set forth in Section 6 or otherwise, which would be furthered by the application of Maryland law.
8. Based on the foregoing, Delaware clearly has the "most significant relationship" to the issues presented. All parties are residents of Delaware. Both vehicles were registered in Delaware and the Plaintiffs were paid in accordance with the Delaware No-fault Statute, 21 Del. C. § 2118. Most importantly, the Plaintiffs brought suit here which, at the very least, the U.S. District Court if not the Maryland state courts had jurisdiction as well. Consequently, Delaware has a much more significant relationship and Delaware law should be applied.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendant's Motion in Limine directing the application of Delaware law is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Toliver, Judge.