298 Mont. 438, 995 P.2d 1002 (2000)
In 1985, General Motors designed, tested, manufactured, and distributed a Chevrolet pickup truck with fuel tanks mounted outside the frame rail.1 The vehicle was originally sold in North Carolina.2 In or about February 1995, Darrell Byrd purchased the pickup from Mike's Wholesale Cars in Newton, North Carolina, supplying a North Carolina address.3
On December 22, 1997, Darrell Byrd drove the pickup with his family from their home near Fortine, Montana, toward North Carolina for Christmas vacation.4 The Byrds, including Darrell, Angela, Timothy (age 13), and Samuel (age 11), were Montana residents at the time.5 Near Russell, Kansas, on Interstate 70, a 1997 International semi-tractor trailer driven by Betty J. Kendall collided with the pickup, causing a fire.6 Darrell, Angela, and Timothy Byrd died; Samuel Byrd sustained injuries requiring emergency treatment and hospitalization.7
Alvin Phillips, a North Carolina resident, serves as legal guardian of Samuel Byrd and personal representative of the estates of Angela, Darrell, and Timothy Byrd.8 Samuel Byrd now resides in North Carolina.9 Probate proceedings for the estates are pending in Montana's Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County.10 The plaintiffs filed product liability actions asserting negligence and strict liability claims against General Motors and seeking compensatory and punitive damages; General Motors denies all liability.11
The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, certified three questions to the Montana Supreme Court under Rule 44, M.R.App.P., after the parties disagreed on the substantive law that should be applied in this diversity action.12
Whether, in a personal injury/product liability/wrongful death action, where there is a potential conflict of laws, Montana will follow the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, including the "most significant relationship" test set forth in §§ 146 and 6, in the determination of which state's substantive law to apply?13
The traditional choice of law rule known as lex loci delicti commissi provides that the infliction of injury is actionable under the law of the state in which it was received.14 Experience has shown that this last event rule does not always work well.15 The vast majority of states have rejected it in favor of the most significant relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 145, 146, and 6.16
Yes. The present dispute is a product liability action raising negligence and strict liability claims in which the parties disagree about the substantive law that should be applied to compensatory and punitive damages.17 The United States District Court certified the choice of law questions. Montana has no statutory provision governing choice of law. This Court had not previously reached a choice of law issue in a case involving conflicting tort rules.18 The traditional lex loci rule often selects the law of a state with no interest in the resolution of the dispute.19 It has produced arbitrary results that courts have attempted to avoid through escape devices such as the public policy exception.20
In contrast, the Restatement approach permits analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court.21 It does so by evaluating the contacts listed in § 145(2) according to their relative importance with respect to the principles stated in § 6.22 Because Montana already follows the Restatement (Second) for contract disputes, there is no reason to maintain a different approach for torts.23
Montana will follow the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, including the most significant relationship test, in tort actions presenting choice of law questions.24
Whether, given the facts of this case, Montana law applies to the plaintiffs' tort and damages claims under Montana's choice of law rules?25
Under §§ 146 and 175 of the Restatement (Second), the local law of the place of injury is presumptively applicable in a product liability and wrongful death action.26 Another state may have a more significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles of § 6 and the contacts of § 145(2).27
Yes. Although the injury occurred in Kansas, analysis of the § 6 factors shows that Montana has the most significant relationship. The purposes of Montana product liability law—to afford maximum protection to consumers against dangerous defects and to provide full compensation to injured residents—are directly furthered when Montana domiciliaries are injured by a defective product.28 The 1985 Chevrolet pickup was designed, tested, manufactured, and distributed by General Motors with fuel tanks mounted outside the frame rail and was originally sold in North Carolina.29 Darrell Byrd purchased it in Newton, North Carolina in February 1995.30
On December 22, 1997, the Byrds, who were Montana residents domiciled near Fortine, Montana, were driving the vehicle from Montana toward North Carolina when a collision on Interstate 70 near Russell, Kansas caused a fire that killed Darrell, Angela, and thirteen-year-old Timothy Byrd and injured eleven-year-old Samuel Byrd.31 Kansas has no interest in applying its product liability defenses, comparative negligence rules, damage caps, or punitive damage limits because the pickup was not sold in Kansas and the Byrds were not Kansas residents.32 North Carolina's interest is diminished because it adheres to the traditional place of injury rule and would itself apply Kansas law.33 Michigan's interest as the possible place of manufacture is minimal because the purpose of product liability law is to regulate in-state sales and compensate residents rather than to protect manufacturers.34
The remaining § 6 factors do not point to any other state.35
Montana law applies to the plaintiffs' tort and damages claims.36
Does Montana recognize a "public policy" exception that would require application of Montana law even where Montana's choice of law rules dictate application of the laws of another state, and would such an exception apply in this case?37
No. The purpose of a choice of law rule is to resolve conflicts between competing policies of interested states.40 The Restatement analysis already requires a court to consider the policies of the forum and other interested states when determining which state has the most significant relationship.41 Creating a separate public policy exception would therefore be redundant.42 On the facts presented, the most significant relationship analysis already selects Montana law because Montana's interests in protecting its residents and compensating them for injuries caused by defective products are implicated while the policies of Kansas, North Carolina, and Michigan are not, so no additional exception is required.43
Montana does not recognize a separate public policy exception to its choice of law rules, and no such exception is needed in this case.44