# In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1979

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · January 5, 1981 · 644 F.2d 594

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913026

## Case

- **Full name:** In re AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ON MAY 25, 1979. Appeal of McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION. In re AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ON MAY 25, 1979. Appeal of IN ALL THE CONSOLIDATED CASES IN MASTER FILE NO. MDL 391. In re AIR CRASH DISASTER NEAR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ON MAY 25, 1979. Appeal of LLOYD'S BANK CALIFORNIA as of Estates of Williard R. Nary and Julia T. Nary
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** January 5, 1981
- **Citations:** 644 F.2d 594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cudahy
- **Judges:** Cudahy, Sprecher
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913026

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the Second Restatement's most significant relationship test "incorporates a presumption that the local law of the state where the injury occurred should govern, unless another state has a `more significant relationship' to the occurrence or to the parties," citing …
- recognizing that Illinois choice of law rules employ the issue-by-issue examination of conflicts of law called “depe-cage”
- concluding design of jet engine took place in California where defendant performed this work

## Opinion text

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join without reservation in the result and commend the insight and creativity of Judge Sprecher’s probing analysis. Decisive in the district court’s disposition of the punitive damages problem and of considerable analytical prominence in our own is the concept that the two states of the defendants’ principal places of business have a weighty interest in their respective policies toward either awarding or denying punitive damages. This view may be most significant in the case of McDonnell Douglas, domiciled in Missouri. The district court found that claims for punitive damages against this defendant could stand because of Missouri’s position that tort-feasors in wrongful death cases could be subjected to damages punitive in character if “aggravating circumstances” were shown. We, in turn, have determined that major weight should be accorded to Missouri’s position favoring such exemplary damages under the principle of “corporate accountability.” Some question remains for me whether Missouri would, in fact, have a strong interest in imposing financial sanctions on its own corporate domiciliary, employing Missouri citizens and paying Missouri taxes, as punishment for that corporation’s extraterritorial torts affecting non-residents of Missouri. The finding of such a Missouri interest may impute an unusual level or altruism to Missouri policy and may overstate the commitment of Missouri (or any other state) to “corporate accountability” in circumstances where both the misconduct and the injuries took place outside the borders of the domiciliary state. Nevertheless, I am willing, arguendo and for present purposes, to. indulge these assumptions (which seem enlightened in theory). But the questions raised about state policy toward extraterritorial torts underline the need for a federal law to govern tort liability for these unthinkable air disasters.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8913026. Public record. Not legal advice.