## Facts

- Darrell Byrd bought a used 1985 Chevrolet pickup truck that had been manufactured in Michigan and originally sold in North Carolina.
- By the time of the accident, Darrell Byrd and his family were living in Montana.
- While traveling from Montana to North Carolina, the truck collided with a semi-truck on a Kansas freeway and a post-collision fire occurred.
- Darrell Byrd, Angela Byrd, and their child Timothy died; another child, Samuel Byrd, survived but was injured.
- Alvin K. Phillips (a North Carolina resident) sued General Motors Corporation (GM) in a federal court in Montana as personal representative of the estates and guardian of the minor survivor, asserting products-liability, negligence, and wrongful-death claims.
- The parties disputed which state’s substantive law governed, with Montana, Kansas, North Carolina, and Michigan identified as potentially relevant.

## Issues

1. Whether Montana should adopt the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test for tort choice-of-law questions.
2. Under the governing choice-of-law method, whether Montana, Kansas, North Carolina, or Michigan substantive law applies to the products-liability and wrongful-death claims.
3. Whether Montana recognizes a separate public-policy exception that would require application of Montana law even if another state’s law would otherwise govern.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court adopted the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” test for tort choice-of-law analysis.
- Applying that test, the court concluded that Montana law governed the underlying claims, despite Kansas being the place of injury.
- The court declined to recognize a standalone public-policy exception, reasoning that public-policy considerations are addressed within the Restatement framework.
- The court answered the certified questions and returned the case to the federal district court for further proceedings under Montana law.

## Legal Principles

- Montana applies the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws “most significant relationship” test to determine the applicable substantive law in tort cases.
- In products-liability and wrongful-death cases, the law of the place of injury is presumptively applicable, but the presumption may be overcome when another state has a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.
- Relevant Restatement considerations include the contacts and the policies and interests of the forum and other interested states, along with predictability and ease of application.
- A separate public-policy “override” is not recognized because the Restatement analysis already accounts for the policies of interested jurisdictions.

## Conclusion

Montana’s high court adopted the Restatement (Second) most-significant-relationship approach for tort conflicts, held that Montana had the most significant relationship to this multistate products-liability death case, and therefore applied Montana substantive law without creating an independent public-policy exception.


Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 298 Mont. 438, 995 P.2d 1002 (2000)