attorney for appellant attorneys for appellee
Richard J. Dick Richard A. Young
Samuel L. Jacobs Eric D. Johnson
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_______________________________
No. 89S01-0206-CV-351
Loretta Baca,
Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.
New Prime, Inc.
Prime, Inc. and
Independent Contractor
Operators of Springfield,
Appellees (Defendants below).
_______________________________
Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court 1, 89D01-9804-CT-14
The Honorable P. Thomas Snow, Judge
_______________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 89A01-0108-
CV-304
__________________________________
June 23, 2004
Shepard, Chief Justice.
After an accident in eastern Indiana involving residents of multiple
states, the ensuing litigation has necessitated deciding certain choice-of-
law questions. Because we issued an important decision on choice of law
while this case was pending, we remand for further consideration.
Loretta Baca was riding in a truck driven by her husband Christopher
Baca when Christopher collided with another vehicle. The accident occurred
on Interstate 70 in Wayne County, Indiana. Loretta sustained injuries in
the accident, and Christopher died. The two had recently married.
Christopher was a Colorado resident at the time of the accident and Loretta
was a South Carolina resident, but she was on her way to Colorado to
establish residence.
Christopher was employed by Independent Contractor Operators of
Springfield, a Missouri company, and he had entered into an employment
contract with New Prime, Inc. in Missouri. He was driving in the course of
his employment when the accident occurred. New Prime owned the truck that
Christopher was driving.
Loretta brought suit against New Prime, among others, asserting
vicarious liability for the injuries she sustained. She alleged that
Christopher had been “careless and negligent while driving the trailer in
the scope of his employment.” New Prime asserted as an affirmative defense
that Indiana law would support a claim for injury due to wanton or willful
behavior but not due to ordinary negligence. By cross-motions for summary
judgment, Loretta and New Prime joined the issue of whether Indiana’s tort
law should apply.
The trial court held that Indiana negligence law governed and granted
New Prime summary judgment. Loretta appealed to the Indiana Court of
Appeals, which affirmed. See Baca v. New Prime, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 1014
(Ind. Ct. App. 2002). We granted transfer.
While this appeal has been pending, we have decided another choice-of-
law case on certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Simon v. United States, 805 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2004). In the
course of doing so, we re-affirmed our leading case on lex loci delecti,
Hubbard Manufacturing Co. v. Greeson, 515 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1987), and
indicated that we had elected not to adopt the Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws (1971).
Also significant for purposes of this case, we considered for the
first time whether Indiana choice-of-law doctrine embraces dépeçage, the
process of applying separately the law of different states within the same
case. We declined to adopt dépeçage, saying we would not “separately
analyze and apply the law of different jurisdictions to issues within each
claim” of a suit. Id. at 802.
This holding in Simon will not necessarily lead to a different
resolution than the one reached by the trial court and the Court of Appeals
in this case. The plaintiff argued and briefed this case in substantial
reliance on the Restatement (Second), however, and neither party took into
account the applicability or inapplicability of the doctrine of dépeçage.
We think it appropriate to give the parties and those courts a chance to
brief and consider the issues with benefit of our recent decision.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for consideration in light
of Simon v. United States.
Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.