## Facts

- Paul Dolan, a New Jersey resident, was catastrophically injured when his car struck an intermodal container that fell from a tractor-trailer on Route 46 in Palisades Park, New Jersey (Jan. 2, 2004).
- The tractor-trailer cab was owned by Sea Transfer Corp., and driven by Sea Transfer employee Jose Gonzalez.
- The cargo container was owned by Hapag-Lloyd AG, an ocean carrier; the trip was transporting the container from a Staten Island terminal to a consignee in the Bronx.
- Sea Transfer instructed Gonzalez to route through New Jersey to avoid New York City traffic, even though the most direct route was entirely within New York.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the driver’s negligence, finding the accident resulted from Gonzalez’s failure in Staten Island to properly secure the container to the chassis before departure.
- A jury awarded damages to Paul Dolan (including pain and suffering, medical expenses, and wage losses) and to Kathleen Dolan for loss of consortium.
- Hapag-Lloyd AG appealed, challenging the choice-of-law ruling applying New York law to its liability and the resulting judgment and denial of a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether New York or New Jersey law governs Hapag-Lloyd AG’s liability where the negligent securing of the container occurred in New York, but the accident and injury occurred in New Jersey.
2. Whether, under the applicable law, Hapag-Lloyd AG could be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Sea Transfer’s driver.
3. Whether the judgment entered on the jury verdict and the denial of a new trial should be reversed based on an asserted choice-of-law error.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order applying New York law to Hapag-Lloyd AG’s liability.
- The court held New York had the stronger interest because the operative negligence occurred at a New York marine terminal in connection with a New York delivery.
- The court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict against Hapag-Lloyd AG.
- The court affirmed the order denying Hapag-Lloyd AG’s motion for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- New Jersey conflict-of-laws analysis requires identifying the state with the most significant relationship to the issue by comparing relevant contacts and the states’ governmental policies.
- In tort cases with split conduct and injury locations, the place of the conduct causing the injury may control when that state has a dominant regulatory and loss-allocation interest in the challenged conduct.
- A state has a strong interest in regulating safety-related preparation and dispatch of commercial cargo from its ports and terminals and in allocating responsibility for negligence occurring there.
- When application of competing states’ laws would change whether a defendant may be held vicariously liable, the court must evaluate which state’s policies are most directly advanced by applying its rule to the defendant’s conduct and role.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division applied New York law to determine the container owner’s liability because the container was negligently secured in New York for a New York delivery, and New York’s regulatory and loss-allocation interests outweighed New Jersey’s interest arising from the accident location and plaintiffs’ residency.


Dolan v. Sea Transfer Corp., 942 A.2d 29 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)