COLLINS v. TRIUS
8/15/1995
The case we consider was reported to us by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Mead, J.) after it denied Trius, Inc.'s motion to have Canada's law of damages applied to this action rather than Maine's. Trius contends that Canadian damages law, which limits recovery in tort for "pain and suffering,"
I.
Trius, a Canadian corporation, is engaged in the business of operating motor coaches for hire. A tour bus owned and operated by Trius was involved in an accident in Clifton, Maine, on December 3, 1992. The bus left the roadway and overturned after striking a pickup truck driven by Michael Treadwell. Eight passengers brought actions in the Superior Court. The bus passengers and bus driver were all residents of Canada. The bus was registered in Canada, and the passengers had purchased their tickets in Canada. The bus trip originated in New Brunswick and was to arrive in New York on December 4, 1992, before returning to Canada on December 10, 1992.
II.
We review questions of law de novo. See Lord v. New England Soc'y for the Preservation of Antiquities, Inc., 639 A.2d 623, 624 (Me. 1994). We abandoned the rigid lex loci delicti choice of law rule with respect to an action for a personal injury in Beaulieu v. Beaulieu, 265 A.2d 610 (Me. 1970). In Adams v. Buffalo Forge Co., 443 A.2d 932 (Me. 1982), we explained:
In Beaulieu we cited favorably the approach of the Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws ยง 379, comment d, p. 9 (Tent.
Draft No. 9) (1964) which implemented the use of the more
flexible "most significant contacts and relationships" test.
265 A.2d at 616-17. Since our decision in Beaulieu the official
draft of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971)
has been approved and published by the American Law Institute.
Sections 145 and 146 of the Restatement (Second) continue to
advocate the "most significant contacts and relationships" test
promulgated by the earlier drafts. Section 146 now provides
that " n an action for a personal injury , 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 applying the "most significant contacts and relationships" test, it is necessary to isolate the issue, to identify the policies embraced in the laws in conflict, and finally to examine the contacts with the respective jurisdictions to determine which jurisdiction has a superior interest in having its policy or law applied. Here, the specific issue is whether Canadian damages law, which limits recovery in tort for non-pecuniary harm, should apply to this action. Although Maine has a significant interest in regulating conduct on its highways, the rule at issue is primarily "loss-allocating" rather than "conduct-regulating." In the so-called "Trilogy" cases, Canada has demonstrated a profound interest in achieving a measure of uniformity in tort recovery among Canadian residents.
There is general agreement that the one incontestably valuable contribution of the choice-of-law revolution in the tort conflict field is the line of decisions applying common-domicile law in cases where the parties are codomiciliaries of the same state. Harold L. Korn, The Choice-of-Law Revolution: A Critique, 83 Colum.L.Rev. 772, 799 (1983) cited in Thomas v. Hanmer, 109 A.D.2d 80, 489 N.Y.S.2d 802, 806 (1985). The Superiority of the common domicile as the source of law governing loss-distribution issues is evident. At its core is the notion of a social contract, whereby a resident assents to casting her lot with ot
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys