![]() In Laconis, the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, was injured when his car hydroplaned in water which had accumulated in a depression on the highway immediately past the bridge maintained by the defendant, a New Jersey bridge commission. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 400 Pa. We disagree with appellants, however, that application of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act would violate Pennsylvania's public policy. Moreover, the Court specifically stated that, if the public policy of one state allows suit against another state, the Full Faith and Credit clause does not require that state to grant the other immunity. 1182, 1190-91, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979), the Supreme Court held that whether one state is required to accord sovereign immunity in its courts to another state is purely a question of comity and is not a constitutional mandate. We agree with appellants that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not mandate that a state recognize another state's laws granting itself and its agencies immunity from suit.Therefore, we find that New Jersey has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence, and as a result, we will apply the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. The Act, like its Pennsylvania counterparts, enables injured persons to sue government entities for damages, but simply imposes limits. While this Commonwealth has strong interests in protecting its citizens against tortious acts and in regulating the conduct of a foreign corporation, such interests are not impeded by applying the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. New Jersey Transit Corp., supra at 890-891. Moreover, appellee receives a significant portion of its operating budget from New Jersey tax dollars and conducts most of its business in the state of New Jersey. New Jersey has a strong interest in regulating the conduct of its common carriers and of its highways. Here, the place of injury and the place of the alleged tortious conduct is New Jersey. In the instant case, applying the same factors as in Laconis, we find that New Jersey has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |