## Facts

- Michael F. Cipolla, a Pennsylvania resident, rode as a nonpaying guest passenger in a car driven by John Shaposka, Jr., a Delaware resident.
- The parties were former schoolmates in Wilmington, Delaware.
- On January 24, 1966, after classes ended, Shaposka drove Cipolla from Wilmington toward Cipolla’s home in Pennsylvania.
- The vehicle was owned by Shaposka’s father, registered in Delaware, and housed in Delaware.
- Before entering Pennsylvania, the car was involved in a collision in Delaware, injuring Cipolla.
- Delaware law included a guest statute barring guest recovery for ordinary negligence and permitting recovery only for intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct.
- Pennsylvania had no guest statute and allowed guest recovery on ordinary negligence.
- Plaintiffs pleaded only ordinary negligence, not willful or wanton misconduct.

## Issues

1. In a tort action by a Pennsylvania guest against a Delaware host arising from an accident in Delaware involving a Delaware-registered and Delaware-housed vehicle, should Delaware or Pennsylvania law govern the guest-host liability issue?
2. Under the governing choice-of-law methodology, which state has the greater interest in having its rule applied to the guest statute question?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment for the defendant.
- The court held Delaware had the greater interest in applying its law to the guest-host issue.
- Delaware’s guest statute therefore governed and barred plaintiffs’ negligence-only claim.
- The court treated the case as presenting a true conflict and resolved it by weighing contacts qualitatively in light of the policies underlying the competing rules.

## Legal Principles

- In tort choice-of-law disputes, the forum applies an interest analysis that selects the law of the state with the greater interest in having its policy applied to the particular issue.
- State contacts are relevant only to the extent they relate to the policies and interests implicated by the issue; contacts are weighed qualitatively rather than quantitatively.
- When competing laws reflect opposing state policies that would each be furthered by application to their respective domiciliaries, the case presents a true conflict requiring comparative interest evaluation.
- Departures from a territorial orientation in tort are not automatic; the place of injury may remain controlling when its regulatory and policy interests are strong.
- Where Delaware’s guest statute applies, a nonpaying guest cannot recover from the host for ordinary negligence absent intentional, willful, or wanton misconduct.

## Conclusion

Because the accident occurred in Delaware and involved a Delaware driver and Delaware-registered vehicle, Delaware’s interest in enforcing its guest statute predominated over Pennsylvania’s interest in compensating a resident plaintiff; applying Delaware law barred recovery on the pleaded theory of ordinary negligence, making summary judgment proper.


Cipolla v. Shaposka, 439 Pa. 563, 267 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1970)