Callahan & Fusco scored a substantial victory on behalf of our clients in Westchester County on a complex choice-of-law motion in a high-stakes personal injury action. In Long v. SFJ Trucking, Inc. et. al. plaintiff, a New York resident, sustained serious injuries resulting in the amputation of his left leg when he was involved in a motorcycle vehicle accident in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Defendants were domiciled in Connecticut. Contributory negligence was a significant factor as Plaintiff was speeding and crossed the double-yellow line prior to the collision. Plaintiff brought suit in New York to take advantage of New York’s pure comparative negligence law, which allows plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are more than fifty percent liable for the accident. In contrast, Connecticut has a limiting loss allocation law prohibiting plaintiffs from recovering damages if they are more than fifty percent liable for the accident at issue.
Defendants brought a motion for the court to take judicial notice of Connecticut’s limiting loss allocation statute arguing that as Connecticut domiciliaries they were entitled to the protection of Connecticut law.
Defendants relied on the seminal case of Neumeier v. Kuehner which set up a three-rule framework for resolving choice-of-law issues involving statutes that allocate losses after the tort occurs rather than regulate primary conduct. Under the Neumeier framework when a defendant’s conduct occurs in the state in which they are domiciled, and that state’s laws limits or precludes liability, then that state’s law applies. Plaintiff argued that as a New York resident he was entitled to the protection of New York’s pure comparative negligence law.Essentially, this Neumeier Rule adopts a “place of injury” test when two state laws conflict with each favoring their respective domiciliaries.
Ultimately, the Court held that Connecticut’s limiting loss allocation law applied to this action because defendants were domiciled in Connecticut and the accident occurred in Connecticut. Therefore, under the Neumeier framework defendants were entitled to the protection of Connecticut law.