## Facts

- An Ontario mother owned an Ontario-registered automobile driven by her Ontario-resident son.
- An Ontario-resident infant rode as a nonpaying guest passenger in the vehicle during a pleasure trip that entered New York and was to return to Ontario.
- A single-car accident occurred in New York on June 15, 1963, injuring the infant passenger.
- The infant sued in New York seeking damages based on ordinary negligence.
- Ontario law included a guest statute barring a nonpaying passenger’s recovery for injuries caused by a host driver’s ordinary negligence.
- Defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to assert the Ontario guest statute as an affirmative defense, requiring a choice-of-law determination.

## Issues

1. Whether New York should apply New York negligence law or Ontario’s guest statute to an accident occurring in New York involving Ontario domiciliaries and an Ontario-registered vehicle.
2. Whether defendants should be granted leave to amend their answer to plead the Ontario guest statute, given the governing choice-of-law analysis.

## Decision

- The court held that New York law governed the host-guest liability issue for the accident occurring on New York roads.
- The court declined to apply Ontario’s guest statute to bar the guest passenger’s ordinary-negligence claim.
- The court denied leave to amend to assert the Ontario guest statute because the proposed defense would be ineffective under the applicable choice-of-law rule.
- The result allowed the plaintiff to proceed under New York’s ordinary negligence standard.

## Legal Principles

- New York applies an interest-analysis (grouping-of-contacts/center-of-gravity) approach in tort conflicts, selecting the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant interest in the specific issue presented.
- For automobile accidents occurring in New York, New York has a substantial conduct-regulating interest in applying its liability standards to the operation of vehicles on its highways.
- A foreign guest statute that limits or bars a passenger’s recovery is treated primarily as a loss-allocation rule; it will not be applied when doing so would substantially conflict with New York’s interests in deterrence and compensation for negligent driving occurring in New York.
- Leave to amend to plead an affirmative defense may be denied where the proposed defense is futile as a matter of law under the controlling choice-of-law analysis.

## Conclusion

The court applied New York negligence law to an accident occurring in New York despite all parties’ Ontario ties, refused to give effect to Ontario’s guest statute, and denied defendants’ attempt to add that statute as an affirmative defense because it would not bar recovery under New York’s conflict-of-laws methodology.


Kell v. Henderson, 47 Misc. 2d 992, 263 N.Y.S.2d 647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)