## Facts

- On June 1, 2000, Scott Bain died in a helicopter accident near Helmet, British Columbia, Canada.
- The helicopter was registered in and based out of British Columbia.
- Scott was an Australian citizen. In February 2000, he moved to Alberta, Canada to take helicopter flight-training lessons and maintained a bank account there.
- After completing training, Scott moved to British Columbia and took a job with Bailey Helicopter, Ltd.
- Scott’s application for a commercial pilot license listed him as an Australian citizen and a resident of British Columbia, while his Bailey employment records listed his permanent residence as Australia.
- Scott remained registered to vote in Australia and had not applied for Canadian permanent residency at the time of his death.
- Scott’s parents, John and Peta Bain, sued Honeywell International, Inc. in Texas, alleging the crash was caused by Honeywell’s installation of a defective screw in the helicopter.
- The Bains alleged (without evidence at the choice-of-law stage) that the screw was installed at a Honeywell facility in California.
- Honeywell was domiciled in Texas and removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on diversity grounds.
- The Bains moved to apply Texas or Alberta law; Honeywell moved to apply British Columbia law and also sought partial summary judgment based on British Columbia law.

## Issues

1. Under Texas choice-of-law rules for tort claims, should Texas, Alberta, or British Columbia law govern the wrongful-death and survival claims arising from the British Columbia crash?
2. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test, which jurisdiction has the strongest connection to the occurrence and the parties?
3. Should plaintiffs receive additional time to respond to Honeywell’s motion for partial summary judgment after the choice-of-law ruling?

## Decision

- The court granted Honeywell’s motion to apply British Columbia law.
- The court denied the Bains’ motion to apply Texas or Alberta law.
- The court granted the Bains an extension of time to respond to Honeywell’s pending motion for partial summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity case, a federal court applies the forum state’s choice-of-law rules; here, Texas choice-of-law rules applied.
- Texas uses the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test for tort claims.
- Relevant Restatement contacts include:
  - the place of injury;
  - the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
  - the parties’ domiciles, residences, nationalities, and places of incorporation or business; and
  - where the parties’ relationship is centered, evaluated alongside Restatement § 6 policy considerations.
- For an aircraft accident, the place of injury generally carries substantial weight, especially where the aircraft is registered and based in the same jurisdiction and the decedent was working there at the time of the accident.
- Assertions about where the alleged negligent conduct occurred may be given little weight when not supported by evidence at the choice-of-law stage.

## Conclusion

Applying Texas’s Restatement-based test, the Eastern District of Texas held British Columbia had the most significant relationship to the fatal helicopter accident because the crash occurred there, the helicopter was registered and based there, and Scott Bain was living and working there at the time; the court therefore applied British Columbia law and gave plaintiffs extra time to respond to Honeywell’s partial summary-judgment motion.


Bain v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 2d 872 (2002)