【Case Study】

Babcock v.Jackson,191 N.E.2d 279 (N.Y.1963)

A husband and wife from New York went on a car trip with a friend Babcock to Ontario.While in Ontario they had a motor vehicle accident.Babcock sued Jackson,the driver,claiming his negligence caused the car crash.

This case brought up a question of “choice of law”; should the law of the place of residence of the accident victims (New York) be applied,or,should the law of the place of the tort (Ontario) be applied.Under the old conflict rules,the law of the place of the accident should apply.However,Ontario had a law that prohibited passengers from suing the driver.(https://www.daowen.com)

The court rejected a traditionally fixed method of determining which law should apply,and instead,a process of weighing factors such as relationship between the parties,decision to take the trip,connections to the locality.Thus,the court held that the parties did not have substantial connection with Ontario and so it would be unfair to apply the law as the location was largely fortuitous.The court found that the jurisdiction with the most connections was New York and so New York law should apply.

This is a landmark U.S.case on conflict of laws which implied that the American conflicts law abandoned the vested rights doctrine and anticipated the American Conflicts Revolution.