Tuna v. Airbus, S.A.S.

Plaintiffs, two flight attendants from New Zealand, were injured when an aircraft made two sudden movements while flying over the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs brought several negligence and products liability actions in Illinois state court against the corporations that designed the plane. Defendants did not contest liability, but argued that New Zealand law, which precludes compensatory damages, should be applied. The Court held that New Zealand law controlled, and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. After the judgment was entered, Plaintiff received a letter from New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation’s (“ACC”) legal clerk stating that New Zealand law does not bar New Zealanders from bringing civil claims for personal injury in overseas courts. Plaintiff argued that this new information supported vacating the order. Defendants argued that the clerk was not an attorney, and thus was not qualified to provide an expert opinion on the matter. Since the Court could not consider the opinion of the clerk from New Zealand, the ACC’s letter would not have affected the court’s choice-of-law analysis or the resulting summary judgment order.