Opinion ID: 2322620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Cases Distinguished

Text: The appellants argue that our decision in Turner v. Lipschultz [18] should govern. Turner is distinguishable from the present case. In Turner, a New Jersey resident, residing temporarily in Delaware, filed suit in a Delaware court against Wilborn, also a New Jersey resident, and Lipschultz, a Pennsylvania resident, for injuries sustained when Lipschultz's truck collided into Wilborn's car, in which Turner was a passenger. [19] The issue in Turner related to the admissibility of evidence of special damages in a Delaware court against a non-resident tortfeasor for injuries sustained in Delaware. [20] We applied the law of the state where the conduct and the injuries occurred because the factual predicate of that case did not call for a departure from section 146's general directive. [21] In addition, we gave particular weight to the fact that the relationship between all three parties was centered in Delaware because that is where the accident occurred, and Delaware was the only forum in which plaintiff could file suit against both defendants. [22] The appellants also contend that Yoder v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. [23] is instructive. However, Yoder is also distinguishable. In that case, the plaintiff was injured at his home in Maryland when a pole he was carrying came into contact with an overhead power line owned and maintained by the defendant, a Delaware corporation. [24] The Superior Court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant's conduct occurred in Delaware and concluded that the conduct giving rise to the injuries occurred in Maryland. [25] Consequently, the Superior Court applied the law of Maryland, where the plaintiff was injured, to the contributory negligence issue. [26] Notwithstanding, the Superior Court concluded Delaware's policy against a cap on non-economic damages was superior to Maryland's policy, which limited non-economic awards. [27] In consideration of these competing policy interests, the Superior Court concluded Delaware had the most significant relationship to the damages issue and applied Delaware law to that issue. [28]