## Facts

- American Airlines Flight 191, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10, crashed near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport shortly after takeoff on May 25, 1979, killing all 271 persons aboard and two persons on the ground.
- Numerous wrongful-death actions were filed in multiple jurisdictions against McDonnell Douglas (aircraft designer/manufacturer) and American (airline operator).
- Many federal cases were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Plaintiffs sought punitive damages under various state laws, creating conflicts questions because relevant contacts included Illinois (crash site), Missouri (manufacturer’s principal place of business), California (manufacturer-related conduct), and Oklahoma (airline maintenance activities), among others.
- Illinois and California did not permit punitive damages for wrongful death; some other connected states did.

## Issues

1. Under the applicable forum choice-of-law rules (including Illinois and California), may punitive damages be awarded in wrongful-death actions arising from the crash against McDonnell Douglas and/or American Airlines?
2. May the court apply issue-by-issue conflicts analysis (dépeçage) so that the punitive-damages question is governed by a different state’s law than other damages issues?

## Decision

- The court held that punitive damages were unavailable against either McDonnell Douglas or American under each applicable forum’s choice-of-law methodology.
- The court affirmed the order striking punitive-damages claims against American.
- The court reversed the order allowing punitive-damages claims against McDonnell Douglas and directed that those claims be stricken.
- The court accepted issue-by-issue conflicts analysis but concluded that, for the punitive-damages issue, the controlling law in the relevant actions barred punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity applies the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine the governing substantive law.
- In multistate tort litigation, issue-by-issue choice-of-law analysis (dépeçage) may be used; the governing law can vary by issue.
- Punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence policies distinct from compensation, so conflicts analysis may weigh states’ regulatory interests specific to punitive damages.
- Under Illinois choice-of-law principles, the state with the most significant relationship to the injury and its consequences may supply the rule for punitive damages; Illinois wrongful-death law bars punitive damages.
- Under California’s governmental-interest/comparative-impairment approach, a forum’s policy against punitive damages in wrongful death can outweigh another state’s interest in allowing punitive damages, leading to application of the anti-punitive rule for that issue.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit applied forum-specific conflicts rules to the punitive-damages issue in consolidated air-crash wrongful-death actions and concluded that punitive damages were unavailable against both the aircraft manufacturer and the airline, affirming dismissal of punitive claims against American and requiring dismissal of punitive claims against McDonnell Douglas.


In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chi., Ill., on May 25, 1979, 644 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1981)