CONFLICTS OF LAW
DORN
SPRING 2014
TRADITIONAL THEORIES & APPROACHES
Alabama v. Carroll TORT CASE – TERRITORIAL APPROACH
○ Facts:
■ Plaintiff – Brakeman — Citizen of Alabama
■ Defendant – Alabama Corporation
■ Plaintiff was injured when a link between two of the freight train cars broke – in Mississippi
■ Railroad employees of defendant had a duty to inspect the links
■ Plaintiff sued in Alabama State Court
■ Under the common law
■ Employer’s Liability Act of Alabama
○ Analysis:
■ Cause of action = Tort
■ Critical event = injury
■ Can always have a duty and a breach – but there is no tort without injury
■ Where did event occur = Mississippi
○ Characterization:
■ Plaintiff argued the cause of action was contract
■ Contract occurred in Alabama
■ Should have been Alabama law
■ Court didn’t agree
Fitts v. Minnesota 100 YEARS AFTER ALABAMA – UPHOLD TERRITORIAL APPROACH
○ Facts:
■ Plaintiff was an Administrator of an Estate of a deceased woman
■ Defendant was company that manufactured planes
■ Administrator’s daughter and grandchildren were killed in plane crash in Florida
■ Plaintiff sued in Alabama – wrongful death – products liability
○ Procedural History:
■ Plaintiff wanted Alabama law
■ Trial court determined it should be Florida law
■ This was appellate court which affirmed
○ Holding:
■ Upheld principle of lex loci delicti
■ Substantive rights of an injured party according to the law of the state where the injury occurs
■ This was the traditional approach used in Alabama
Milliken v. Pratt CONTRACT CASE
○ Facts:
■ Plaintiffs were creditors in Maine
■ Defendant was the wife of Daniel Pratt
■ Defendant and her husband lived in Massachusetts
■ Defendant’s husband applied for credit with plaintiffs
■ Wife executed a contract
■ Eventually plaintiffs sued wife for money owed
■ Defendant argued that she was domiciled in Mass – and Mass did not let woman enter into contracts
■ Plaintiffs argued contract was enacted in Maine which did allow woman to enter into contracts
○ Analysis:
■ Cause of action = contract
■ Critical event = where the contract was formed
■ Contract was made and performed in Maine
■ Guaranty was delivered to the creditors in Maine
■ Husband ordered the goods from Maine and accepted delivery of goods in Maine
■ Event occurred in Maine
In Re Barrie’s Estate PROBATE/REAL ESTATE CASE
○ Facts:
■ Mary Barrie was a resident of Illinois
■ Executed a will which left her property – including 160 acres in Iowa – to an Illinois Church
■ When she died – the word “VOID” was written on the cover
■ Illinois Supreme Court ruled the will was revoked and distributed the Illinois property to relatives
■ The will was offered to probate in Iowa by the Church
■ The relatives objected saying Illinois ruled the will was revoked
○ Analysis:
■ Cause of action = probate/real estate
■ Event = where the land was located
■ Land was located in Iowa
■ Full Faith and Credit:
■ Requires:
■ Decision on the merits
■ Final Decision
■ Jurisdiction
■ **Illinois did not have jurisdiction to rule on Iowa land
White v. Tennant: — DOMICILE CASE p. 30
○ Facts:
■ Husband died and court had to determine where he was domiciled to determine what state laws governed the distribution of his property.
○ Held:
■ Born and domiciled his whole life in West Virginia.
■ Moved to Pennsylvania with no intention of returning the WV
■ Later his wife became ill and they went to WV to care for her
■ Husband got the same fever and died
■ Estate was divided by laws of WV
■ Court reversed and said he was domiciled in Penn
○ Rule:
■ Domicile:
■ The most recent state where she was:
■ Resided
■ (Easily satisfied – can stay overnight in a hotel and satisfy)
■ With intent to remain indefinitely
■ (Without intent to leave at a definite time)
A REVIEW OF ESCAPE DEVICES – EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE CHOICE DICTATED BY TRADITIONAL THEORIES
Exceptions to the Territorial Approach (Escape Devices):
Characterization:
Levy v. Daniels (Characterization from Tort to Contract) p. 39
○ Facts:
■ Driver rented a car from rental company (Daniels)
■ Passenger was in the car when driver left it on the side of the road
■ Second driver ran into the car injuring passenger
■ Passenger sued in Connecticut – Domicile of passenger and defendant
■ Accident occurred in Mass.
■ In Mass – passenger could not sue rental company
■ In Conn. – anyone who rented a car to another was liable for any damages caused by operation of that car
○ Held:
■ Reversed trial court
■ Ruled it should be Conn law because it was the Conn Statute that formed the duty for a tort COA. The Rental agreement incorporated the statute.
■ Duty arises out of K
■ Statute created direct liability – otherwise there would be no tort.
Haumschild v. Continental (Characterization from Tort to Family)
○ Facts:
■ Wife was injured in an automobile accident
■ She sued her husband’s insurance company in Wisconsin
■ Wife and Husband were domiciled in Wisconsin
■ Accident took place in Cal
Held:
■ Penn law because wife’s claim arose from husband’s injury in Penn
■ Different then Haumschild: Issue wasn’t spousal immunity, or lack thereof, this issue was the injury
Vest v. St Albans: (not in the book)
○ Facts:
■ Patient was referred to a mental health facility.
■ Claimed his conditioned worsened
■ Wife sued for loss of consortium
■ Plaintiffs domiciled in West Virginia
■ Defendant from Virginia
■ Sued in West Virginia
■ Injury in Virginia
○ Conflict:
■ Virginia law requires proper notice
■ Trial court dismissed because defendant was not properly notified under Virginia law
■ Appellate court reversed – relying on WV law which did not require notice
■ This is not the type of case where a choice needs to be made.
○ Held:
■ WV law Notice Provision = Procedural Issue
■ Virginia medical malpractice review process was too complicated and expensive
*Erie note in this case: often the state procedural issues are so intertwined with substantive rights that a court might apply state procedural law in the face of federal procedural law.
Owen v. Owen: (Guest Statute)
○ Facts:
■ Husband and Wife temporarily moved from S. Dakota to Indiana so husband could complete school
■ Continued paying SD taxes and had SD driver’s licenses
■ Wife was injured in Indiana when husband lost control of car
■ Wife sued in S.D.
○ Held:
■ Trial court applied Indiana law and dismissed complaint because Indiana law did not permit wife to sue husband
■ Appellate court reversed – Indiana law was against public policy of S.D.
■ Guest Statute= friends can’t sue for negligence
■ Policy behind Guest statute is to avoid collusion
■ Arguments against are that the legal system is set up to stop collusion by X-examination
■ Guest statutes create legal fictions
■ South Dakota had a guest statute but repealed it as an “expression” of policy.
■ Allowing policy exception to lex loci maintains certainty, simplicity and ease of application while avoiding decisions that are repugnant to the public policy of the state.
Interest Analysis: (compare to second outline)
