Hines et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company

Filing 56

ORDER granting 50 Motion to Determine Applicable Law. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 10/17/2012. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLEMMIE HINES, et al
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-254-JJB

COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE APPLICABLE LAW
Before the Court is a motion by the Defendant, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
(“Cooper”), to determine the applicable law for this case (Doc. 50). The Plaintiffs, Clemmie
Hines, et al, filed a response (Doc. 52). The Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 53) and memorandum
to supplement its motion (Doc. 54).
This case is a products liability action alleging that the tread of a defective tire
manufactured by Cooper separated and caused a deadly automobile accident on November 28,
2009, on Interstate 10, in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents and
Cooper is an Ohio corporation.

Cooper maintains a manufacturing facility in Tupelo,

Mississippi, which is where Cooper constructed the tire in question. Plaintiff Clemmie Hines
purchased the tire in Louisiana.
approximately 1,200 people.

Plaintiffs claim Cooper’s manufacturing facility employs

Cooper claims to have designed the tire in question at its

headquarters in Ohio. Approximately 118 Louisiana residents were either witnesses or otherwise
involved in the accident in question.
The Plaintiffs originally brought this case in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi. The Northern District granted Cooper’s Motion to Transfer
Venue to the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It found this district
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) as the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the
1

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” and based upon factors set forth by the
Fifth Circuit. The factors considered were both private and public. The private factors focused
on the relation to Louisiana of the parties, the events, and the individuals and organizations
relevant to the case. The public factors were Mississippi’s choice-of-law jurisprudence and
Mississippi’s interest in the case compared with that of Louisiana. The Northern District’s
evaluation of Mississippi’s choice-of-law jurisprudence found that the laws of Louisiana should
apply to this case.
Cooper argues the Northern District’s finding that Louisiana law should apply invokes
the law of the case doctrine. The law of the case doctrine, “[a]s most commonly defined . . .
posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the
same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618
(1983). The Northern District’s ruling decided a Motion to Transfer Venue. It did not decide the
law applicable to this case, so the law of the case doctrine does not apply.
The parties agree that Mississippi law and Louisiana law are in conflict, requiring a
choice of law analysis to be performed. Mississippi law allows for punitive damages, while the
Louisiana Products Liability Act does not. Miss. Code § 11-1-65; La. R.S. 9:2800.51, et seq. In
deciding which state’s law applies, the transferee court of a case transferred pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) must apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court. Ferens v. John
Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990). “A transfer under § 1404(a) . . . does not change the law
applicable to a diversity case.” Id. Since the transferor court is in Mississippi, Mississippi
choice-of-law jurisprudence is applicable. Mississippi follows the “most significant relationship
test” provided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law. McDaniel v. Ritter, 556 So. 2d

2

303, 310 (Miss. 1989). Plaintiffs argue Mississippi has the most significant relationship with this
case,1 while Cooper argues that Louisiana has the most significant relationship.
The Restatement (Second) § 145 provides:
(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are
determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the
most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles
stated in § 6.
(2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to
determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(a) the place where the injury occurred,
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred,
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties,
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
“[T]he principles of Section 6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) defy mechanical applicationthey are less “rules of law” than generally stated guideposts. Choice of law, rather than looking
at minimum contacts, looks to “where the contacts are maximized.” Church v. Massey, 697 So.
2d 407, 410 (Miss. 1997).
McDaniel v. Ritter, which adopted the most significant relationship test as Mississippi’s
choice-of-law standard, also evaluated the principles based on the facts in that case. 556 So. 2d

1

As part of their argument, Plaintiffs assert that Miss. Code § 75-1-105 (1972) indicates that Mississippi has
expressed a strong interest in applying its law to products manufactured in Mississippi. Plaintiffs cite the previous
version of this provision, which is now Miss. Code § 75-1-301. Regardless, the Court does not agree with Plaintiffs
on its interpretation and finds that the Mississippi Code provision is not relevant to the determination in this ruling.

3

at 301–11. McDaniel determined the applicable law for a wrongful death action arising from a
fatal plane crash. Id. at 304. The crash occurred in Missouri, and the court accordingly found
that the tort occurred in Missouri. Id. at 310–11. The Plaintiffs resided in Mississippi and the
decedent on whose behalf they were suing had been employed by a Mississippi corporation. Id.
at 304, 311. The decedent was flying due to business. Id. at 304. The aircraft was registered in
Tennessee, owned by a Tennessee resident, hangared at a Tennessee airport, the contract to lease
the aircraft was negotiated and entered into in Tennessee, the lessors were Tennessee
corporations, the lessee was a Tennessee corporation, the flight originated from a Tennessee
airport, and the pilot was a Tennessee resident. Id. at 311. McDaniel held that Tennessee bore
the most significant relationship to occurrence and the parties, emphasizing that the
pilot/passenger relationship was established in Tennessee and the trip began and ended in
Tennessee. Id.
Church v. Massey applied the most significant relationship test principles to a negligence
suit filed by a motorcyclist involved in a wreck with another vehicle. 697 So. 2d at 410. It
found the relevant significant contacts to be the plaintiff’s and defendant’s residencies, the
location of the wreck, and the location of the witnesses. Id. The plaintiff’s residence, the wreck,
and the witnesses were all located in Mississippi, while the Defendant resided in Alabama. Id.
The court found that the most significant contacts were “clearly” located in Mississippi. Id.
Applying the most significant relationship test as guided by McDaniel and Church, we
find that Louisiana Products Liability law applies.

The accident occurred in Louisiana.

Plaintiffs argue, however, that the tort occurred in Mississippi, since the tire was constructed at
Cooper’s facility there. But in following with McDaniel, the Court finds that the tort occurred at
the location of the accident, in Louisiana. 556 So. 2d at 301–11. Similarly to Church, the
4

residence of the Plaintiffs, the location of the accident, and the state in which a large number of
potential witnesses reside are the same, Louisiana. 697 So. 2d at 410. Louisiana is the state in
which the tire was purchased, and this, along with it being the location of the accident and the
tort, makes Louisiana the state in which the relationship between the parties is centered. Cooper
is an Ohio corporation and claims to have designed the tire in question in Ohio. Mississippi is
the location of a Cooper manufacturing facility, the location where the tire was constructed, and
the state in which an uncertain number of Cooper employees that are potential witnesses reside.
The majority of these contacts are with Louisiana, are centered in Louisiana, and involve actions
in Louisiana and people that reside in Louisiana. Louisiana is therefore the place where contacts
are maximized. Louisiana has the most significant relationship with this legal action, and
Louisiana law applies to this case.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Determine Applicable Law (Doc. 50) is GRANTED
and the law of the State of Louisiana will be applied to Plaintiff’s products liability claims.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 17, 2012.





JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE

5