Maryland case law › Sacra v. Sacra

Sacra v. Sacra

48 Md. App. 163 (1981) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: ReversedWeant, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis appeal arose from a two-count declaration filed by John Edward Sacra, individually and as personal representative of the estate of John Edward Sacra Jr., against Henry C.

Weant, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from the action of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County sustaining without leave to amend the appellees’ demurrer to the appellant John Edward Sacra’s two count declaration alleging a wrongful death action as well as a survival action. The actions complained of arose out of an accident that occurred on or about 16 September 1979, at which time Henry C. Sacra was driving a camper truck, which was owned by him and his wife Hazel, the appellees herein, on Delaware Route 12 just north of the Maryland-Delaware State line. Tragically Mr. Sacra failed to stop the camper at a Delaware stop sign and consequently it was struck by another vehicle, which was traversing the intersecting Delaware highway.

This impact caused the Sacra vehicle to be pushed across the Maryland State line where it struck a Maryland utility pole, overturned, and then exploded into flames. As a result, John Edward Sacra Jr., the appellant’s decedent, died of thermal burns, as did the decedent’s cousin, Norman C. Sacra Jr. Subsequently, John Edward Sacra, individually and as personal representative of the estate of John Edward Sacra Jr. filed suit against Henry C. Sacra and Hazel Sacra, seeking expenses and damages as a result of the appellees’ negligence. As was noted above, the trial court disposed of the wrongful death and survival actions by granting the appellees’ demurrer without leave to amend. 165 On appeal the following questions are presented by the appellant: 1. Did the lower court commit error in sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer to Count I (Wrongful Death) on the ground that Delaware substantive law applies to this cause of action, because the statutory choice-of-law rule in wrongful death actions directs application of the substantive law of the jurisdiction where the wrongful act occurred, and Plaintiffs Amended Declaration clearly alleges that the wrongful act occurred in Maryland? 2.

Did the lower court commit error in sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer to Count II (Survival Action) on the ground that Delaware substantive law applies to this cause of action, because the common law lex loci delicti rule directs the courts, on tort questions, to apply the substantive law of the place of injury, and Plaintiffs Amended Declaration clearly alleges that the injury causing death occurred in Maryland? 3. Even if the lower court was correct in ruling that Delaware law controls the substantive issues of this case, did the lower court commit error in sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs Amended Declaration, because a critical question of fact (whether Plaintiffs decedent was or was not a guest passenger within the meaning of the applicable Delaware statute?) remains in dispute? 4. Even if the lower court was correct in ruling that Delaware law controls the substantive issues of this case, did the lower court commit error in applying a Delaware statute of debatable constitutionality that is contrary to strong public policy of the state of Maryland? 166 1. and 2. Both of these inquiries raise the issue whether the substantive law of Maryland or that of Delaware should be applied in the instant case.

It is theorized by the appellant that because the place of injury, i.e., death, was in Maryland, the choice-of-law rule and the lex loci delecti rules should be interpreted so as to result in the application of Maryland substantive law. On the other hand, the appellees maintain that the substantive law of the State of Delaware should govern because the controlling law should be that of the place where the force was set in motion or that of the place of the impact. 1 Neither party has cited a case directly on point, nor have we been able to find one involving the facts as they exist here, i.e., where the impact to a vehicle occurs in one state and it is forced across the state line by the impetus of said impact, causing the death in another state. The appellant seems to suggest that there are two separate and distinct elements of the accident in question. He speaks of Delaware

This is a preview of Sacra v. Sacra. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.