BABCOCK V.

JACKSON (1963)

FACTS: Miss Babcock (as guest) went with Mr. and Mrs. Jackson (as hosts) to Canada for a weekend trip
using the Jackson’s car. (All are residents of Rochester, New York). Mr. Jackson was driving along Ontario,
Canada when he lost control of the car and went off the highway. Babcock was seriously injured and
consequently sued Mr. Jackson for Tort/ Damages in NY court. Jackson moved to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the law of the place where the accident occurred should govern. The law of Canada states
that any owner or driver of a vehicle is not liable for any bodily injury (except if in the business of common
carrier).

ISSUE: What law should be applied in this case?

HELD: New York law should apply.

 The traditional view of Lex Loci Delicti (“Law of the place where the tort was committed”) or the
Vested Rights Doctrine has already been discredited because it fails to take account underlying
policy considerations. It affects to decide concrete cases upon generalities which do not state the
practical considerations involved. More particularly, as applied to torts, the theory ignores the
interest which jurisdictions other than that where the tort occurred may have in the resolution of
particular issues.
 Citing Auten v. Auten (1953), the traditional view has been abandoned and has applied what has
been termed the "center of gravity" or "grouping of contacts" theory of the conflict of laws.
 This is applied by giving controlling effect to the law of the jurisdiction which, because of its
relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific
issue raised in the litigation.
 In this case, New York has the greater and more direct concern than Ontario. The present action
involves (1) injuries sustained by a New York guest (2) as a result of the negligence of a New York
host (3) in the operation of an automobile, garaged, licensed and undoubtedly insured in New York.
In sharp contrast, Ontario's sole relationship with the occurrence is the purely adventitious
circumstance that the accident occurred there.
 New York's policy of requiring a tortfeasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by his
negligence cannot be doubted. This is attested by the fact that the State Legislature has repeatedly
refused to enact a statute denying or limiting recovery in such cases.