McDonnell v. AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc.

Background

This personal-injury and loss-of-consortium case arose from Patricia McDonnell’s fall on a stairway at AMC Danbury 16 in Danbury, Connecticut, on September 24, 2019. The opinion states that Patricia and John McDonnell reside in New York. Patricia received emergency treatment in Connecticut and New York, and the rest of her treatment occurred in New York. AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. is organized under Delaware law and has its principal place of business in Kansas. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. is organized under Missouri law and has its principal place of business in Kansas. The defendants own and operate the theater.

The case was brought under diversity jurisdiction. The defendants’ answer asserted that Patricia McDonnell’s own culpable conduct, carelessness, contributory negligence, or assumption of risk should reduce or eliminate damages. Before trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine—a motion asking the court to decide an issue in advance of trial—seeking application of Connecticut law to loss allocation, meaning the rules determining how damages would be reduced based on the plaintiff’s comparative negligence. The motion concerned that issue only; the defendants argued that New York law should govern the rest of the action.

Parties’ arguments

New York follows pure comparative fault: a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault but is not barred even if the plaintiff was more responsible than the other parties. Connecticut follows modified comparative fault: a plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the parties against whom recovery is sought.

The defendants argued that Connecticut had the greatest interest in the loss-allocation issue because the accident occurred there, the parties’ relevant contacts arose there, and applying Connecticut law matched the parties’ expectations. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants waived the argument by not expressly identifying Connecticut law earlier and that New York law should apply because Patricia McDonnell was a New York resident, received most of her treatment there, and New York had a strong interest in compensating its residents.

Waiver

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ waiver arguments. It held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not require the defendants to identify a particular state’s law when pleading their affirmative defenses. The defendants’ allegations that Patricia McDonnell’s culpable conduct should reduce or eliminate damages were sufficient to give notice of a comparative-fault defense, even though the answer did not cite Connecticut’s statute or expressly identify a modified comparative-fault system.

The court also held that the defendants’ timing did not waive the argument. The choice-of-law question was legal and did not require new factual development. The parties had known from the beginning that Patricia McDonnell lived in New York and was injured in Connecticut. The defendants had included a comparative-fault argument in the joint pretrial order, raised the choice-of-law issue one month later in the motion, and addressed it at an earlier case-management conference. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficient time to respond and could not show prejudice.

Choice-of-law analysis

Because the case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied New York’s choice-of-law rules. New York uses the law of the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the dispute. For loss-allocating rules such as comparative negligence, New York’s approach generally points to the law of the place where the accident occurred when the parties have different domiciles and the accident occurred in a third jurisdiction, unless another state’s law would better advance the relevant legal purposes without creating uncertainty or disrupting the interstate system.

The court began with Connecticut law because the accident occurred in Connecticut. It found no sufficient reason to replace Connecticut law with New York law. Connecticut had an interest in regulating the consequences of an accident at a theater located there, while New York’s interest in compensating its resident did not outweigh Connecticut’s connection. The court also rejected the argument that Patricia McDonnell’s presence in Connecticut was merely fortuitous because she intentionally traveled there to attend a particular movie showing.

The court further found that applying Connecticut law was consistent with the parties’ expectations. Patricia McDonnell could reasonably expect Connecticut law to apply to an accident at a Connecticut theater, and the defendants could reasonably expect their Connecticut location to be governed by Connecticut law for accidents occurring there. The court also concluded that applying New York law could create an appearance of favoritism toward a local litigant and encourage forum shopping.

Disposition

The court found that New York choice-of-law rules required Connecticut law to govern comparative negligence and loss allocation at trial. It granted the defendants’ motion in limine and directed the parties to submit proposed jury instructions concerning comparative negligence under Connecticut law by September 16, 2022. The opinion does not decide whether Patricia McDonnell or the defendants were negligent or determine the amount of any damages.