 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nierman v. Hyatt Corporation11/7/2003
Middlesex.
June 10, 2003
Limitations, Statute of. Practice, Civil, Statute of limitations. Conflict of Laws.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' personal injury action is governed by the two-year Texas statute of limitations or the three-year Massachusetts statute of limitations. A judge of the District Court applied the Texas statute and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed. We reverse, concluding that a proper application of functional analysis to this choice of law question dictates that the Massachusetts statute of limitations be applied.
1. Facts.
The operative facts are relatively few and uncontested. The plaintiffs, Sylvia and Edward Nierman, a married couple residing in Massachusetts, arranged through a Massachusetts travel agent to spend two nights during January, 1994, in the defendant's Hyatt Regency hotel at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. On the first day of their stay, the plaintiffs were offered a ride to another part of the hotel in a transport cart operated by a hotel employee. The plaintiffs allege that as Sylvia was climbing into the cart, the driver accelerated, causing Sylvia to be thrown to the ground and injured.
On the third anniversary of the accident (just barely within the Massachusetts limitations period) the plaintiffs filed suit against Hyatt Corporation (Hyatt) in the Newton District Court, seeking damages for Sylvia's injuries and Edward's loss of consortium. Hyatt is organized under the laws of Delaware, maintains a principal place of business in Chicago , Illinois , and conducts operations throughout the world. In Massachusetts, Hyatt manages local hotel facilities and solicits business though its worldwide reservation system. Personal jurisdiction is not at issue.
2. Discussion.
Our analysis of this case is controlled by the principles articulated in New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Gourdeau Constr. Co., 419 Mass. 658 (1995). In Gourdeau, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted a functional approach to deciding choice of law questions involving conflicting statutes of limitations. Id. at 663-664. In so doing, the court abandoned the traditional view that the issue of limitations was procedural, relating to the remedy and not the right, and hence automatically governed by the law of the forum. Id. at 660, 664. See Wilcox v. Riverside Park Enterprises, Inc., 21 Mass. App. Ct. 419, 421 (1986), S.C., 399 Mass. 533 (1987).
More precisely, Gourdeau, supra, adopted the functional approach set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142 (Supp. 1989). See Kahn v. Royal Ins. Co., 429 Mass. 572, 572-573 (1999). Section 142 of the Restatement states:
"Whether a claim will be maintained against the defense of the statute of limitations is determined under the principles stated in § 6. In general, unless the exceptional circumstances of the case make such a result unreasonable:
"(1) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations barring the claim.
"(2) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim unless:
"(a) maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum; and
"(b) the claim would be barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence."
As Gourdeau explained, § 142 first provides that the general principles of the Restatement, i.e., those enumerated in Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971), are ap
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|