Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE TETYANA MCILVAINE AND MICHAEL MCILVAINE, PLAINTIFFS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. 2:12-CV-111-DBH

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This lawsuit arises from serious physical injuries that one of the plaintiffs suffered when the throttle on the 1995 Ford F-150 truck she was driving remained open despite all her attempts to brake the vehicle. The

accident occurred in Maine, and that is where the plaintiffs filed suit. The two plaintiffs, husband and wife, both of whom live in New Hampshire, sued the defendant Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Michigan, claiming that the truck was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Ford removed the case from Maine Superior Court based on diversity of citizenship. Ford then moved for summary judgment,

claiming that New Hampshire law applies and that under New Hampshire law

the plaintiffs have insufficient expert opinion testimony to proceed. motion for summary judgment is DENIED.1 CHOICE OF LAW

Ford's

I apply the law of the forum state--Maine--in determining choice of law. York Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 307 F. Supp.2d 108, 111 (D. Me. 2004). The plaintiffs argue that Maine law applies; Ford argues that New Hampshire law applies. For choice of law, Maine applies the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. According to section 145, the factors to consider are:
(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, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Here, the accident and injury occurred in Maine. The plaintiffs, owners of the truck, were residents of New Hampshire, and the truck was titled there. The plaintiff worked in Scarborough, Maine. Although her husband was the primary driver (and he worked in New Hampshire), the injured plaintiff used the truck once or twice per week. At the time of the accident, she was on her way to Portland, Maine to shop. The plaintiffs had other business dealings in Maine (pharmacy; library; savings bank; credit union), since they lived within two miles of the Maine border. The original purchase of the truck (not by the
                                                            
As a result of the Local Rule 56 pre-filing conference, the parties have simplified the record substantially with stipulations, for which the Court is grateful.
1

2

plaintiffs) was in the Midwest.

If Ford's conduct caused the accident and

injury, that conduct was in neither Maine nor New Hampshire, but rather at the point of manufacture. Ford is incorporated in Delaware and has a

principal place of business in Michigan. Ford has no particular connection to New Hampshire. There is no relationship between the plaintiffs and Ford. In a claim for personal injuries (as here), Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws

Download DBH_02132013_2-12cv111_McILVAINE_V_FORD_MOTOR_CO.pdf

Maine Law