## Facts

- Two Kansas minors were injured in a collision between personal watercraft in ocean waters off Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
- The minors’ parents sued in Kansas, individually and as next friends, asserting negligence and negligent entrustment claims.
- Defendants were sued individually and as guardians ad litem for the minor operator of the other watercraft.
- The material facts were not disputed; the dispute concerned which jurisdiction’s substantive tort law applied (Kansas or Mexico).

## Issues

1. Under Kansas choice-of-law rules for torts, does lex loci delicti require application of Mexican substantive law where the injury occurred in Mexico, even though all parties are Kansas residents?
2. Does Kansas’ public-policy exception or any comity-based rationale permit applying Kansas law instead of Mexican law in these circumstances?

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment on the choice-of-law ruling.
- The court held Mexican substantive law governs because Kansas follows lex loci delicti in tort actions, and the injuries occurred in Mexico.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments based on Kansas residency, comity, and public policy.
- The court applied de novo review because choice of law is a legal question and the summary-judgment facts were undisputed.

## Legal Principles

- Kansas applies lex loci delicti in tort cases: the law of the place of the wrong governs substantive issues.
- Lex loci delicti applies even when all parties are Kansas residents.
- Lex loci delicti applies even when the injury occurs in a foreign country.
- A Kansas court may refuse to apply foreign law only if it conflicts with Kansas’ strong public policy, defined as a policy so firmly established that its existence is not subject to substantial doubt.
- A mere difference between Kansas law and foreign law, including a less favorable result for plaintiffs, does not establish a strong public-policy conflict.

## Conclusion

Because the tort injuries occurred in Mexico, Kansas choice-of-law doctrine required applying Mexican substantive law, and plaintiffs did not show a strong Kansas public-policy basis to displace lex loci delicti.


Raskin v. Allison, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1240, 57 P.3d 30 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002)