Court Opinion

ID: 9797839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:30:26.885185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:30.151521
License: Public Domain

OPINION
By the Court,
Shearing, J.:
Northwest Pipe Company has filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order ruling that Nevada law governs the underlying wrongful death actions arising out of a fatal automobile accident that occurred in California. We conclude that the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in determining that Nevada law governs.
The underlying actions arose from an accident that occurred on a highway in San Bernardino County, California, when three concrete pipes weighing several tons fell off a Northwest Pipe Company truck and struck several vehicles. Six individuals were killed: two Nevada residents, Manual and Sandra Vigil, and four California residents, Randall and Melissa Ledford and their two *135children, Lonnie and Skyler. Eleven plaintiffs, the real parties in interest in this proceeding, filed wrongful death actions in the district court. All plaintiffs are Nevada residents, except Linda Cozzolino and Leonard Ledford, who are California residents. Northwest Pipe Company, apparently the sole remaining defendant, is an Oregon corporation, with headquarters in Oregon and business interests throughout the United States, including Nevada. In fact, the pipes that fell from the truck were apparently destined to be used in a Las Vegas Valley Water District project.
Northwest Pipe does not dispute the jurisdiction of the Nevada courts, but argues that the Nevada district court should apply California law in the wrongful death actions before it. Both Northwest Pipe and the real parties in interest agree that the choice of law question is governed by Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc.1 Under Motenko, the law of the forum is presumed to govern unless two or more of four enumerated factors show that another state has an overwhelming interest in the litigation. These factors are:
(a) it is the place where the conduct giving rise to the injury occurred;
(b) it is the place where the injury is suffered;
(c) the parties have the same domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, or place of business and it is different from the forum state;
(d) it is the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.2
In this case, the only factor favoring application of California law is that the conduct giving rise to the injury occurred in California. Motenko, however, recognizes that even though an accident occurs in one state, the compensable injury may be suffered in a different state. In Motenko, plaintiffs parent was physically injured in Nevada, but the legal injury, for purposes of a claim for loss of parental consortium, was suffered in Massachusetts. The same is true in a wrongful death action in which the injury is to the survivors. In this case, almost all of the survivors are Nevada residents, and the Vigils’ children, who are impacted the most, are Nevada residents. Therefore, although the deaths occurred in California, the injury to the survivors has occurred in Nevada.
The remaining two factors mentioned in Motenko also do not demonstrate that California has an overwhelming interest in this litigation. The parties do not have the same non-Nevada domicile, *136and no other relationship exists between the parties that is centered elsewhere. Since Northwest Pipe cannot show that two or more of the Motenko factors are met, the presumption that the law of the forum governs is not overcome.3
The district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion4 in ruling that Nevada law applies to the wrongful death action before it. Therefore, we deny this petition.
Young and Rose, JJ., concur.

 112 Nev. 1038, 921 P.2d 933 (1996).

 Id. at 1049, 921 P.2d at 935.

 Id. at 1041, 921 P.2d at 935.

 Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981).