Opinion ID: 1119397
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The place where the injury occurred

Text: This factor could arguably favor applying the law of either Nevada or Massachusetts in resolving the Motenkos' claim for loss of parental consortium. Nevada could be considered the place of injury because Beth Motenko was injured in Las Vegas and a claim for loss of consortium is derivative of that injury. The local law of Massachusetts could also qualify under this factor because that is the place of the Motenkos' domicile and where the son, Allen Motenko, will primarily suffer the loss of his mother's consortium. Loss of parental consortium is a relatively new cause of action and much of the analysis concerning the place of injury regarding this claim would parallel that of its analogue, loss of spousal consortium. A minor child has a strong interest in his parent's society, an interest closely analogous to that of the spouse in a normal loss of consortium claim. Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc., 381 Mass. 507, 413 N.E.2d 690, 692 (1980). An argument favoring the application of Nevada law is that the law of the place of the injury to the spouse (parent) applies because that is where the last event necessary to create liability occurred. Sestito v. Knop, 297 F.2d 33 (7th Cir.1961); Jordan v. States Marine Corp., 257 F.2d 232 (9th Cir.1958). An action for loss of consortium can also be viewed as derivative of the primary harm to the physically injured spouse (parent). Miller v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 436 F.Supp. 460 (E.D.Va.1977) (concluding that because of the derivative nature of loss of consortium claims, the location of the marital domicile is irrelevant and the claim must be decided under the same law as the main claim). These authorities support the proposition that in an action for loss of consortium, the law of the place of the primary physical injury to the parent would apply because the action is derivative of the parent's action for personal injury. The argument favoring the application of Massachusetts' law notes that although the conduct causing the injury occurred in Nevada, the injury will be suffered primarily where the relationship between Allen Motenko and his injured mother is domiciled. Equally applicable to loss of parental consortium is the ruling in Avis Rent-A-Car Systems v. Abrahantes, 559 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla.App.1990), that [c]laims for loss of consortium are governed by the law of the state where the marriage is domiciled, rather than by the law of the state where the [physical] injury occurred .... The state in which the marriage is domiciled has a greater interest... in a loss of consortium case, than does the state where the incident occurred. See also Linnell v. Sloan, 636 F.2d 65 (4th Cir.1980) (concluding that, although the physical injury was suffered in Iowa, Minnesota has the most significant relationship with the issue of an action for loss of consortium); Wright v. Minter, 736 F.Supp. 1024, 1028 (W.D.Mo.1990) (the majority view, and the more recent trend, is that the law of the family domicile governs a conflicts question in an action for loss of either spousal or parental consortium); Berghammer v. Smith, 185 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1971) (within the District of Columbia's choice-of-law rules, the law of the state of the marital domicile rather than the law of the state where the wrong occurred should control a loss of consortium action). I am of the opinion that under the most significant relations test, this factor concerning the place where the injury occurred should be dispositive in applying the local law of the state of Massachusetts to the resolution of this issue. Unfortunately, since the majority looks only to quantity of contacts rather than quality, this most significant of all contacts falls by the wayside.