Debbie Knightly v. Gula

2016 DNH 142

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: August 18, 2016
• Docket: 16-cv-124-AJ
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Debbie Knightly

v. Civil No. 16-cv-124-AJ Opinion No. 2016 DNH 142 Stanley E. Gula and Virginia L. Gula

O R D E R

In July 2015, Brian Knightly was working inside a garage

owned by Stanley Gula and Virginia Gula in Errol, New Hampshire.

Compl. ¶¶ 6-9. While moving items from the second floor of the

garage to the first floor, Mr. Knightly lost his balance and

fell sideways onto the concrete floor below. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. Mr.

Knightly was transported to a local hospital and later died from

his injuries. Id. ¶ 12.

Following the death of her husband, Debbie Knightly brought

suit against the Gulas alleging claims for wrongful death and

loss of consortium. Compl. ¶¶ 6-25. As part of her wrongful

death claim, Ms. Knightly requests punitive damages pursuant to

Maine’s wrongful death statute. 18–A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2–

804.

Unlike Maine law, New Hampshire’s wrongful death statute

precludes punitive damages. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 507:16,

556:12. The Gulas now move to dismiss Ms. Knightly’s claim for

punitive damages, arguing that damages under New Hampshire law

should instead apply. Doc. no. 11. In her objection, Ms. Knightly contends that a determination of which state law should

govern damages is premature. Doc. no. 13. In the alternative,

Ms. Knightly argues that, if the court does make a

determination, Maine law should control. Id.

“When the court, sitting in diversity, considers a case in

which more than one state has an interest, it must determine

which state's law to apply. To make this determination, the

court sitting in New Hampshire must apply New Hampshire's choice

of law rules.” Sinclair v. Brill, 815 F. Supp. 44, 46 (D.N.H.

1993). Under New Hampshire’s choice of law rules, if the

relevant law is substantive and “the New Hampshire law actually

conflicts with the laws of another interested state[,]” the

court applies a five-factor test determine which state’s law to

apply. Id. The relevant factors include:

(1) the predictability of results; (2) the maintenance of reasonable orderliness and good relationships among the States in the federal system; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the governmental interest of the forum; (5) and the court's preference for what it regards as the sounder rule of law.

LaBounty v. Am. Ins. Co., 451 A.2d 161, 163 (N.H. 1982).

As the above framework shows, a fact-intensive analysis is

necessary in order to make a choice of law determination in this

case. For example, the second factor requires to court to

determine whether a particular state “does not have substantial

connection with the total facts and with the particular issue

2 being litigated.” Clark v. Clark, 222 A.2d 205, 208 (N.H.

1966). Without discovery and only the benefit of a five-page

complaint and some briefing, the court is unwilling to determine

which state law governs damages until the factual record is more

developed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss, doc. no.

11, is denied without prejudice to being resubmitted as a motion

for summary judgment

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge

August 18, 2016

cc: Jonathan S. Frizzell, Esq. Nicholas James Deleault, Esq. John L. Riff, IV, Esq.