In a 4 to 3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Charitable Immunity Act may not always be available as a defense if the underlying tort occurred in another state.  In P.V. v. Camp Jaycee, suit was filed in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of a twenty-one-year-old female camper with Down Syndrome against Camp Jaycee, alleging negligent supervision when she was sexually assaulted by a fellow camper.  Camp Jaycee Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation operating summer camps for mentally challenged individuals. It is incorporated in New Jersey and maintains offices in the state, but operates campgrounds in Pennsylvania. The female camper is a resident of New Jersey. 
 
The camp moved to dismiss the case, arguing that New Jersey's Charitable Immunity Act barred suit against Camp Jaycee because the plaintiff was a "beneficiary" of the camp's charitable works. The trial court agreed and the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division reversed, finding that Pennsylvania law should apply. Pennsylvania does not recognize charitable immunity and charitable corporations in that state are subject to the same tort liability as any other entity.
 
The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the appellate court's decision. The Court's opinion, however, will certainly create confusion in the legal community. New Jersey courts traditionally resolve "conflicts of law" issues with what the Court describes as a "modern government interest analysis."  The Court, however, decided this case by using the "most significant relationship" test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws (1971). Many will say that the Court's use of the "most significant relationship" test in this case essentially creates a bright line rule that the law of the state where the injury and the conduct causing the injury occurred should generally be applied.
 
The Court explained that allowing application of the Charitable Immunity Act would impair Pennsylvania's ability to regulate the conduct of foreign corporations that have chosen to operate within its borders.   
 
The three Supreme Court Justices who disagreed with the ruling filed a separate dissenting opinion. They argued that the Court had essentially adopted a new standard for deciding which state's law is applicable. The dissenters continued by criticizing the majority for disregarding what they believed to be the explicit public policy of protecting New Jersey based charities as set forth by the New Jersey Legislature in the Charitable Immunity Act.