16 N.Y.2d 120, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463, 209 N.E.2d 792 (1965)
The plaintiff and defendant were both New York domiciliaries who were temporarily residing in Boulder, Colorado during the summer of 1959.1 Both parties were enrolled as summer students at the University of Colorado.2 They had arrived in Colorado at separate times and by separate means of transportation.3 No arrangement had been made between them to meet while in Colorado, and neither party had formed any plan that the plaintiff would ride as a passenger in the defendant's automobile.4
On August 11, 1959, the plaintiff entered the defendant's automobile without any prior arrangement.5 The defendant consented to drive the plaintiff to a place of instruction in Longmont, Colorado.6 The parties intended that the drive would end at that destination, and no plans were made for any other trip.7 During the course of this short ride, a collision occurred between the defendant's vehicle and another car.8
The plaintiff sustained injuries in the collision and later brought suit in New York seeking recovery for damages resulting from the defendant's ordinary negligence in operating the automobile.9 The action was tried on an agreed set of facts stipulating the above circumstances.10
The trial court determined that New York law governed the claim.11 Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment.12 The Court of Appeals then took the case for review.13
Whether the law of New York or the law of Colorado governs the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the defendant's ordinary negligence in an automobile accident that occurred in Colorado?14
Under the conflict of laws rule established in Babcock v. Jackson, the law to be applied is that of the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation and the strongest interest in its resolution.15
Yes. Colorado law governs the claim.16 The court first isolated the issue as whether in an automobile host-guest relationship a negligent driver should be liable to his injured passenger under ordinary negligence standards.17 Colorado's guest statute embodies a threefold policy of protecting drivers and their insurers against fraudulent claims, preventing suits by ungrateful guests, and prioritizing the claims of injured parties in other vehicles to the negligent defendant's assets.18
The parties had come to rest in Colorado for an extended period as summer students, the host-guest relationship was formed there without any New York planning, and the accident arose directly out of Colorado-based activity on a short trip between two Colorado locations.19 These contacts gave Colorado a superior interest in applying its law to the relationship and the occurrence.20 New York's sole connection is the parties' domicile, which carries no independent significance for the host-guest issue apart from its natural incidents such as vehicle registration and insurance.21
Colorado law governs the plaintiff's claim.22
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Fuld dissented on the ground that the factual situation presented no material distinction from Babcock v. Jackson.23 In both cases suit was brought in New York by one New Yorker against another for injuries sustained while riding as a guest in a New York-registered and insured vehicle.24 Colorado's guest statute, like Ontario's in Babcock, has as its prime objective the protection of its own driver-defendants and insurers against fraudulent claims, a policy that can have no application to an action between New York parties involving a New York-based vehicle.25
New York therefore retains the predominant interest in vindicating its policy of requiring negligent hosts to compensate injured guests, because the consequences of an uncompensated injury affect the community where the injured party resides.26
Chief Judge Desmond dissented, agreeing with Justice Fuld that Babcock v. Jackson and Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines together require application of New York law.27 He emphasized that New York's strong public policy of requiring a tortfeasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by negligence should not be departed from simply because the accident occurred beyond the state's borders.28 Concepts such as significant contacts, center of gravity, and state interests are not satisfactory guides for decision, as Colorado has no discoverable interest in the application of its special public policies to litigation in New York between two New York residents.