Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America
Citation: 65 N.Y.2d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985)
Facts
Two New Jersey domiciliary brothers were sexually abused by a Boy Scout troop leader while on scouting trips, some of which took place in New York. The Boy Scouts of America and the Franciscan Brothers were both charitable organizations. New Jersey recognized charitable immunity; New York did not. The plaintiffs sued in New York.
Issue
Which state’s law governs the charitable immunity defense when plaintiffs, defendant charitable organizations, and the domicile of the abuse relationship are centered in New Jersey, but some acts occurred in New York?
Holding
New Jersey law applies, including its charitable immunity doctrine. The New York Court of Appeals held that, under interest analysis, New Jersey had the dominant interest because the parties were all domiciled there and charitable immunity is a loss-allocation rule, not a conduct-regulating rule.
Rule
Under New York’s interest analysis, conduct-regulating rules are governed by the law of the place of the tort; loss-allocation rules (like charitable immunity and guest statutes) are governed by the common domicile of the parties. When the parties share a domicile, that state’s loss-allocation rule applies even if the conduct occurred elsewhere.
Significance
Schultz is critical for understanding the conduct-regulation vs. loss-allocation distinction in New York conflicts law. The case refines Babcock and Neumeier by explaining why domicile controls loss-shifting rules while place-of-the-tort may still govern safety and conduct rules.