## Facts

- In August 1983, an airplane piloted by Dr. William Gafford crashed shortly after takeoff near Ebro, Florida, killing Dr. Gafford, his wife Susan, and their three minor children; the family were Alabama residents.
- In 1985, two wrongful-death/products-liability actions were filed in an Alabama circuit court: one for Dr. Gafford’s estate and one for Susan and the children’s estate interests.
- The claims alleged defective design/manufacture of the aircraft by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation and of a Stormscope weather-detection instrument by Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (3M), and that the defects contributed to the crash.
- Defendants denied defect and causation and asserted Dr. Gafford’s contributory negligence in flying into known adverse weather conditions.
- Before trial, the plaintiffs sought a ruling that Alabama substantive law governed the wrongful-death claims; Florida law would largely limit recovery to funeral expenses, while Alabama law could allow substantial punitive damages.
- The trial court applied Alabama’s lex loci delicti choice-of-law rule and held Florida substantive law controlled because the injury occurred in Florida.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama should abandon lex loci delicti in tort cases and adopt the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test.
2. Whether, under Alabama choice-of-law rules, Florida or Alabama substantive law governed the wrongful-death claims arising from a Florida airplane crash involving Alabama domiciliaries.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.
- The court refused to abandon lex loci delicti and held that substantive rights in tort are determined by the law of the state where the injury occurred.
- Because the crash and deaths occurred in Florida, Florida substantive law applied to the wrongful-death claims, notwithstanding the materially different damages regimes.

## Legal Principles

- In Alabama tort conflicts, the governing substantive law is the law of the place of injury (lex loci delicti).
- Stare decisis supports retaining long-applied choice-of-law rules to preserve predictability and ease of application.
- A flexible “most significant relationship” methodology was rejected as more uncertain and more likely to encourage forum shopping.
- Choice-of-law rules are general standards; unfavorable outcomes in a particular case do not justify ad hoc modification.
- Major policy changes concerning extraterritorial application of Alabama’s wrongful-death remedies are better suited to legislative action than judicial revision of conflicts doctrine.

## Conclusion

Alabama’s highest court held that lex loci delicti remains the governing choice-of-law rule for torts and, because the fatal injury occurred in Florida, Florida substantive wrongful-death law controlled the plaintiffs’ claims even though Alabama law would have provided broader damages.


Fitts v. Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co., 581 So. 2d 819 (Ala. 1991)