Summary
In Cervantes, the Court held the location of the accident was fortuitous because the plaintiff's decedent lived in a different Mexican state than the state in which the accident occurred.
Summary of this case from Pena v. Cooper Tire Rubber Co.Opinion
C.A. No. 07C-06-249-JRJ.
February 23, 2009.
Timothy E. Lengkeek, Esq., Young, Conaway, Stargatt Taylor, Wilmington, DE.
Somers S. Price, Jr., Esq., Potter, Anderson Corroon, Wilmington, DE.
Christian J. Singewald, Esq., White Williams, LLP, Wilmington DE.
Dear Counsel:
In reviewing Bridgestone/Firestone's Opening Brief on the issue of which U.S. law should apply, the Court notes that defendants maintain that this Court "disregarded" the "numerous contacts between this litigation and Mexico."
Ford Motor Company adopted Firestone's Opening Brief. ( See Docket Item ("D.I.") 183.)
D.I. 189 at 11.
This allegation is troubling. First, the Court asked for briefing on the issue of which U.S. law should apply. It did not ask the defendants to rehash their arguments as to why defendants believe Mexican law should apply. Second, it is clear from the Court's August 2008 opinion that the Court did not "disregard" the contacts between this case and Mexico. It conducted the appropriate conflicts of law analysis and decided that the United States, and not Mexico, has the most significant relationship.
Cervantes v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire Company, LLC, 2008 WL 3522373 (Del Super.)