## Facts

- Nelson Flores Hernandez, a resident of Estado de México (Mexico), died in a single-vehicle accident in the Mexican state of Michoacán.
- Azucena Gomez Ortega, also a resident of Estado de México, acted as the personal representative of Hernandez’s estate.
- Ortega alleged that a tire on Hernandez’s vehicle failed and that the failure caused the crash and Hernandez’s death.
- Ortega sued in the Delaware Superior Court asserting strict products liability and negligence-based claims, including negligent design, testing, manufacture, and marketing.
- The defendants were Yokohama Corporation of North America (YCNA), incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California, and Yokohama Tire Corporation (YTC), incorporated and headquartered in California (collectively, Yokohama).
- The tire at issue was designed and manufactured in Virginia and tested in Ohio.
- Yokohama moved for a choice-of-law ruling, arguing that the substantive law of Michoacán, Mexico should apply (or, alternatively, California law).
- Ortega argued for application of Delaware law, seeking broader remedies than those available under Mexican law.
- Mexican law materially limited wrongful-death damages and did not provide a survival cause of action comparable to many U.S. jurisdictions.

## Issues

1. Under Delaware’s choice-of-law approach for tort and products-liability claims, which jurisdiction’s substantive law governs claims arising from a fatal accident in Michoacán, Mexico involving Mexican residents and a tire designed/manufactured/tested in the United States by U.S.-based corporate defendants?
2. If Mexican law would otherwise apply, should the Delaware court refuse to apply Mexican limits on wrongful-death recovery and the unavailability of a survival action on Delaware public-policy grounds?

## Decision

- The court granted Yokohama’s motion to the extent it sought application of Mexican law (the law of Michoacán) to the substantive issues in the case.
- The court rejected Ortega’s request to apply Delaware law to the wrongful-death and related tort claims.
- The court ruled that the case could proceed in Delaware, but with Michoacán law governing substantive issues, including damages and the availability of a survival action.

## Legal Principles

- Delaware determines the applicable law in tort cases by applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test, using Restatement § 145 contacts as informed by Restatement § 6 policy considerations.
- Relevant § 145 contacts include: (1) the place of injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the parties’ domiciles, residences, nationalities, places of incorporation, and principal places of business; and (4) where the parties’ relationship is centered.
- In an accident-and-injury case, the place of injury commonly carries substantial weight, especially when the injured person and the plaintiff are domiciliaries of that same jurisdiction.
- A foreign jurisdiction’s limits on wrongful-death damages and its decision not to recognize a survival action are treated as substantive policy choices about remedies for deaths occurring within its territory; a Delaware court does not replace those choices merely because another forum offers higher recoveries.
- Delaware’s interest arising from a defendant’s Delaware incorporation, standing alone, may be insufficient to displace the law of the jurisdiction where the injury occurred and where the affected individuals reside, particularly when the dispute concerns personal-injury remedies rather than internal corporate affairs.
- Restatement § 6 considerations in cross-border tort cases include the needs of the interstate and international order, respect for other sovereigns’ regulatory decisions, and uniformity and predictability of outcomes for similarly situated claims.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Superior Court held that Michoacán, Mexico had the most significant relationship to the fatal accident and the parties because the injury and death occurred in Michoacán and both the decedent and the estate representative were Mexican residents. Even though the tire’s design, manufacture, and testing occurred in the United States and one defendant was incorporated in Delaware, those contacts did not outweigh Mexico’s regulatory interest in setting the scope of wrongful-death recovery for accidents on its roads; accordingly, the court applied Michoacán law, including its limits on damages and its lack of a survival remedy.


Ortega v. Yokohama Corporation of North America, 2010 WL 1534044