Babcock v. Jackson

Landmark U.S. case on conflict of laws

Babcock v. Jackson

Court	New York Court of Appeals
Full case name	Georgia W. Babcock v. Mabel B. Jackson, as Executrix of William H. Jackson, Deceased
Argued	January 23 1963
Decided	May 9 1963
Citation(s)	191 N.E.2d 279; 12 N.Y.2d 473
Case history
Prior history	Complaint dismissed, Sup. Ct. Special Term; aff'd, App. Div.
Holding
The law of the jurisdiction governs that has the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented. Appellate Division reversed.
Court membership
Chief judge	Charles S. Desmond
Associate judges	Marvin R. Dye, Stanley H. Fuld, John Van Voorhis, Adrian P. Burke, Sydney F. Foster, John F. Scileppi
Case opinions
Majority	Fuld, joined by Desmond, Dye, Burke, Foster
Dissent	Van Voorhis, joined by Scileppi

Babcock v. Jackson, 191 N.E.2d 279, 12 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1963)^[1] is a landmark U.S. case on conflict of laws.

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'; if 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.

The court rejected a traditional fixed method of determining which law should apply, and instead, a process of weighing factors such as relationship between the party, 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.