## Facts

- Two West Virginia residents, Aloha Jane Paul (passenger) and Eliza Vickers (driver), took a weekend trip to Indiana.
- While driving on Interstate 65 in Indiana, Vickers lost control in a single-vehicle crash, killing both women.
- The administrator of Paul’s estate filed a wrongful death action in a West Virginia circuit court against Vickers’ estate and the driver’s insurer.
- Defendants asserted Indiana’s automobile guest statute, which barred a guest passenger’s recovery absent willful and wanton misconduct.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) West Virginia’s conflicts rule required applying Indiana law because the injury occurred in Indiana, and (2) the record lacked evidence of willful or wanton misconduct.
- The circuit court applied Indiana law under lex loci delicti, enforced the guest statute, and granted summary judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether West Virginia should apply the law of the place of injury (Indiana) under lex loci delicti in a tort action arising from an out-of-state automobile accident.
2. Whether West Virginia may refuse to apply Indiana’s automobile guest statute because it conflicts with a strong public policy of West Virginia.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court reaffirmed lex loci delicti as West Virginia’s general conflicts rule in tort cases.
- The court held that Indiana’s guest statute would not be applied because enforcing it would violate West Virginia public policy favoring compensation for injuries caused by negligence.
- As a result, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on Indiana’s guest statute.

## Legal Principles

- West Virginia generally applies lex loci delicti in tort conflicts: the substantive law of the place of injury governs.
- A strong, clearly expressed West Virginia public policy can justify refusing to apply otherwise applicable foreign law.
- A foreign automobile guest statute that bars recovery for ordinary negligence may be rejected when it conflicts with West Virginia’s policy against immunity-like doctrines that restrict negligence recovery.

## Conclusion

West Virginia retained lex loci delicti for tort choice-of-law questions but recognized a public-policy exception, refusing to enforce Indiana’s guest statute because it would bar recovery for ordinary negligence in a manner inconsistent with West Virginia’s strongly remedial approach to negligence liability.


Paul v. Nat'l Life Accident Ins. Co., 177 W. Va. 427, 352 S.E.2d 550 (W. Va. 1986)