## Facts

- Thomas Spinozzi, an Illinois dentist, and his wife Linda traveled to Acapulco, Mexico and stayed at a Sheraton resort.
- The hotel advertised in Illinois, and the Spinozzis selected the resort after seeing an Illinois advertisement; Sheraton also offered them a discounted rate tied to Mrs. Spinozzi’s status as a travel agent.
- While on the resort grounds at night, when lighting was out or inadequate, Dr. Spinozzi left marked pathways and fell into an open maintenance pit, suffering serious injuries.
- The Spinozzis sued the resort entities for negligent maintenance and inadequate lighting; Mrs. Spinozzi also sought damages for loss of consortium.
- The defendants asserted that Dr. Spinozzi’s conduct constituted contributory negligence.
- Under Mexican tort law, contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery; Illinois uses comparative negligence.

## Issues

1. Under Illinois choice-of-law rules, whether Illinois or Mexican substantive tort law governs an injury occurring at a Mexican resort to Illinois plaintiffs.
2. Whether Illinois public policy requires refusing to apply Mexican contributory-negligence law because Illinois has adopted comparative negligence.
3. If Mexican law governs, whether the undisputed facts establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, supporting summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the resort entities.
- Applying Illinois conflict-of-laws principles, the court held Mexico had the most significant relationship because the injury and the allegedly dangerous condition occurred in Mexico.
- The court rejected treating Illinois advertising and discount inducements as sufficient to shift the tort’s legal situs to Illinois.
- The court held applying Mexican contributory-negligence law did not violate a fundamental Illinois public policy.
- The court concluded the undisputed record showed Dr. Spinozzi was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by leaving marked paths in the dark, which barred recovery under Mexican law.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court sitting in diversity applies the forum state’s choice-of-law rules.
- Under Illinois tort choice-of-law analysis, the place of injury generally controls absent strong countervailing considerations; remote antecedent conduct (such as out-of-state advertising) does not ordinarily displace the injury location.
- Illinois may decline to apply foreign law only when it is fundamentally offensive to Illinois public policy; differences between comparative and contributory negligence, without more, do not meet that standard.
- When governing substantive law treats contributory negligence as a complete defense, a plaintiff’s negligence established on undisputed facts warrants judgment for the defendant as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Because the accident and alleged negligence occurred in Mexico, Illinois choice-of-law rules required applying Mexican tort law, and Illinois public policy did not justify rejecting Mexico’s contributory-negligence bar; Dr. Spinozzi’s undisputed conduct constituted contributory negligence, so summary judgment for the defendants was properly affirmed.


Spinozzi v. ITT Sheraton Corp., 174 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 1999)