Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 649 views

    007 - First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek

    Uploaded by

    Bryce King
    The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Colorado law, not South Dakota law, should govern a wrongful death action stemming from a plane crash that killed Carol Hardin Rostek. Both Carol and the pilot, John Rostek, were domiciled in Colorado and the plane was registered in Colorado. Applying a new choice of law rule, the court determined that the law of the state of domicile should govern when both parties are domiciled there. As Colorado was the domicile of both parties, its law applied rather than South Dakota's, where the crash occurred. The court found that applying South Dakota law in this case would produce an unjust and irrational result given that Colorado had the greater interest in the dispute

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    007 - First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek

    Uploaded by

    Bryce King
    649 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Colorado law, not South Dakota law, should govern a wrongful death action stemming from a plane crash that killed Carol Hardin Rostek. Both Carol and the pilot, John Rostek, were domiciled in Colorado and the plane was registered in Colorado. Applying a new choice of law rule, the court determined that the law of the state of domicile should govern when both parties are domiciled there. As Colorado was the domicile of both parties, its law applied rather than South Dakota's, where the crash occurred. The court found that applying South Dakota law in this case would produce an unjust and irrational result given that Colorado had the greater interest in the dispute

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    007_ First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Colorado law, not South Dakota law, should govern a wrongful death action stemming from a plane crash that killed Carol Hardin Rostek. Both Carol and the pilot, John Rostek, were domiciled in Colorado and the plane was registered in Colorado. Applying a new choice of law rule, the court determined that the law of the state of domicile should govern when both parties are domiciled there. As Colorado was the domicile of both parties, its law applied rather than South Dakota's, where the crash occurred. The court found that applying South Dakota law in this case would produce an unjust and irrational result given that Colorado had the greater interest in the dispute

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    649 views1 page

    007 - First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek

    Uploaded by

    Bryce King
    The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Colorado law, not South Dakota law, should govern a wrongful death action stemming from a plane crash that killed Carol Hardin Rostek. Both Carol and the pilot, John Rostek, were domiciled in Colorado and the plane was registered in Colorado. Applying a new choice of law rule, the court determined that the law of the state of domicile should govern when both parties are domiciled there. As Colorado was the domicile of both parties, its law applied rather than South Dakota's, where the crash occurred. The court found that applying South Dakota law in this case would produce an unjust and irrational result given that Colorado had the greater interest in the dispute

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT COLLINS v.

    ROSTEK
    512 P. 2d 314 (1974)

    Doctrine: The rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the law of the place of domicile.

    Facts: The First National Bank in Fort Collins (petitioner herein), is the guardian of the natural children of Carol Hardin
    Rostek. The respondent is the administratrix of the estate of John E. Rostek. Petitioner filed a wrongful death action in
    Colorado district court alleging that negligent operation of the aircraft on the part of John E. Rostek caused the accident
    and the ensuing death of his guest-passenger, Carol Hardin Rostek. The respondent filed a motion for summary
    judgment alleging the rights of the parties are governed by the South Dakota Aircraft Guest Statute.

    For purposes of the summary judgment motion the parties stipulated that at most the petitioner's evidence would show
    simple negligence on the part of John Rostek. The parties also stipulated that John and Carol Rostek were both citizens
    and residents of the state of Colorado, and that Carol Rostek's natural children, who are her sole heirs at law, resided
    with her in Colorado.

    The district court dismissed the case on the ground that lex loci delicti ( the law of the place of the wrong) or South
    Dakota law, applied.

    Issues: Whether South Dakota or Colorado law should be applied.

    Held: Colorado law should be applied.


    With the industrial revolution and the passage of time, it became clear that the mechanical application of lex loci delicti
    to every multistate tort controversy often yield harsh, unjust results, unrelated to the controversy expectations of the
    parties. A greater number of jurisdictions have abandoned or rejected lex loci delicti in favor of a more flexible and
    rational choice of law approach in multistate tort cases.

    A court in New York then proceeded to formulate a specific rule governing the application of guest statutes in multistate
    tort controversies. This rule generally embodies the rational underpinnings of the newer approaches to choice of law
    problems, emphasizing the expectations of the parties and the interests of the different jurisdictions involved. We are
    persuaded that it is just and equitable and ought to be accepted in Colorado with respect to the first two sections thereof
    and we now do so. As stated by the New York court, those sections provide:

    "1. When the guest-passenger and the host-driver are domiciled in the same state, and the [vehicle] is there registered, the law of that state
    should control and determine the standard of care which the host owes to his guest.
    "2. When the driver's conduct occurred in the state of his domicile and that state does not cast him in liability for that conduct, he should
    not be held liable by reason of the fact that liability would be imposed upon him under the tort law of the state of the victim's domicile.
    Conversely, when the guest was injured in the state of his own domicile and its law permits recovery, the driver who has come into that
    state should notin the absence of special circumstances be permitted to interpose the law of his state as a defense."

    We must now apply the aforementioned choice of law rule to determine if the South Dakota guest statute should be
    applied to the case at bar. Both the guest-passenger and the host-pilot were domiciled and residing in Colorado, and the
    airplane was registered in Colorado. Thus, the facts in this case are governed by the first statement of the rule. Under
    this statement, the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the law of the place of domicile which in this case
    is Colorado. Moreover, the facts in the case at bar demonstrate the injustice and irrationality of the automatic application
    of the lex loci delicti rule. South Dakota’s only interest in this controversy is the fortuitous occurrence of the accident
    within its borders. Thus the trial court’s decision to apply South Dakota law to this case can be affirmed only if we are to
    adhere to a mechanical and unfailing application of the place of wrong rule, regardless of the interest of the states
    involved or the expectations of the parties. Accordingly, South Dakota law, including its Airplane Guest Statute, is not
    the appropriate law to apply under this new rule.

    You might also like