27 Babcock vs.

Jackson

Facts:

- Georgia Babcock and her friends (Spouses Jackson) left the city of Rochester in Mr. Jackson’s
automobile. Babcock is their guest for a weekend trip to Canada. While driving in the Province of
Ontario, Mr. Jackson lost control of the car going off the highway and hitting an adjacent stone
wall. Babcock was seriously injured. Upon her recovery and her return to the United States, she
brought this action against Mr. Jackson (William Jackson) alleging negligence for operating his
vehicle.
- Under the laws in force in Ontario at the time of the accident, “the owner or driver of a motor
vehicle, other than a vehicle operated in the business of carrying passengers for compensation, is
not liable for any loss or damage resulting from bodily injury to, or the death of any person being
carried in * * * the motor vehicle.” (Simply put, guests of other states by Ontario hosts are barred
to recover from them) Even though such law is not recognized under the United State’s
substantive law of torts, Jackson moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the law of
the place where the accident occurred governs that Ontario’s guest statute bars recovery.

Issue:

- Whether or Not the law of the place of the tort invariably govern the availability of relief for the
tort or shall applicable choice of law rule also reflect a consideration of other factors which are
relevant to the purposes served by the enforcement or denial of the remedy (PLACE OF TORT or
APPLICABLE CHOICE OF LAW)

Ruling:

NEW YORK LAWS APPLY

- By applying the comparison of relative interests between New York and Ontario makes it clear
that the concern of New York has greater and more direct interest than Ontario.
- The present action involves injuries sustained by a New York guest as the result of the negligence
of a New York host in the operation of an automobile, garaged, licensed and undoubtedly insured
in New York, in the course of a week-end journey which began and was to end there.
o In sharp contrast, Ontario's sole relationship with the occurrence is the purely
adventitious circumstance that the accident occurred there.
- New York’s policy of requiring a tort-feasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by
negligence cannot be overcome by the laws of Ontario.
o Ontario has no interest in denying a New York guest (citizen) against a New York host for
injuries sustained in Ontario by reason that the act was tortious under Ontario laws.
- The purpose of the Ontario laws is to prevent fraudulent assertion of claims of passengers, in
collusion with drivers, against insurance companies.
o It is apparent that the Ontario laws intends to protect Ontario defendants and their
insurance carriers, and not foreign defendants and insurance carriers such as in this case.
o Since the defendants and the complainants, as well as the insurance carriers are from
New York, Ontario laws have little weight as to their application.
- As to that issue, it is New York, the place where the parties resided, where their guest- host
relationship arose and where the trip began and was to end, rather than Ontario, the place of the
fortuitous occurrence of the accident, which has the dominant contacts and the superior claim
for application of its law.
o Although the rightness or wrongness of defendant's conduct may depend upon the law
of the particular jurisdiction through which the automobile passes, the rights and
liabilities of the parties which stem from their guest-host relationship should remain
constant and not vary and shift as the automobile proceeds from place to place. Indeed,
such a result, accords with "the interests of the host in procuring liability insurance
adequate under the applicable law, and the interest of his insurer in reasonable
calculability of the premium.”