May 22, 2018
On May 9, 2018, U.S. Judge Marianne B. Bowler of the District of Massachusetts presided over the issue of whether Massachusetts law or Maine law applied to the substantive issues of an asbestos-injury lawsuit brought by Ruth Burleigh on behalf of Ernest Burleigh, who allegedly died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure.The decedent lived in Maine for all but four years of his life and allegedly endured asbestos exposure while employed as a mechanic at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in Kittery, from 1960 to 1982.While there, it was claimed, among other things, that Mr. Burleigh spent time aboard submarines repairing and replacing General Electric Co. turbines in engine rooms. Given these facts, General Electric moved to have Maine law apply to the claims brought in this matter.
Strategically, G.E. preferred Maine law to Massachusetts law because Maine law imposes a cap on punitive damages whereas Massachusetts law does not.In addition, Maine caps non-economic damages.The plaintiffs, however, stood to recover greater damages in Massachusetts than in Maine and moved to strike General Electric’s motion.
Judge Bowler recognized that Maine was unquestionably the place of injury and that the decedent spent the vast majority of his life in Maine.The fours year he did not live in Maine were spent, not in Massachusetts, but in other states.While place of injury plays a prominent role under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 145 comment e (1971), Restat. (Second) Torts § 145e, consideration was also given to Section 145(2) which focuses on the defendant’s conduct, which occurred in Massachusetts, where General Electric designed and manufactured turbines and from where G.E. shipped turbines and related parts such as gaskets.
Ultimately, Judge Bowler reasoned that while Massachusetts has an interest in holding G.E. liable for its conduct, that interest does not outweigh Maine interests in the case.The judge held that “…on balance Massachusetts does not have a more significant relationship than Maine to the occurrence and the parties…,” and further reasoned that the place of injury also has the advantage of being readily ascertainable.
Judge Bowler made clear that place of injury controls the choice of law issue under the given circumstances.This ruling will discourage out-of-state plaintiffs with out-of-state injuries from cherry picking Massachusetts jurisdiction because of its uncapped law on damages.