WHERE DO CONFLICT OF LAWS ARISE?
HYPO: Assume one country (A) has initiated a war within the borders of another county (B) to combat aggression. A “wins” and begins rebuilding infrastructure in B. Assume that A contracts with “Muddy Waters” to handle security for civilians working on infrastructure repair. Assume that two of Muddy Waters’ employees are involved in: 1) Allegation of reckless driving that causes death to B’s local citizen; 2) Allegation of intentional assault on B’s local citizen who was perceived as threat (self-defense?), resulting in death; 3) Allegation of misuse of A’s funds for repair or infrastructure; 4) Claim that Muddy Water’s has not been reimbursed for all the repairs performed.
WHAT’S INCLUDED IN THIS COURSE?- three classic components of domestic conflicts court (jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement of judgments)
WHAT ELSE?- Federal-State Conflicts, Domestic Relations Conflicts, International Conflicts
How to Brief a Choice-of-law Case- forum, domicile of the parties, characterization of the case, key factual contacts, what is the substantive conflict?, which choice of law rules are applied?, choice of law holding?, public policy affecting outcome?
-Vested Rights theory-a right accrues upon the happening of a certain event, and that right follows the injured person (really the same rule from Carroll)
Terms of Art- domicile, characterization, traditional choice of law (what we’re doing the first couple weeks), public policy
TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO CHOICE OF LAW
Alabama Great So. RR v. Carroll (still good law in some states)- case filed in Alabama state court; defendant RR Co. is from Alabama, and plaintiff is from Alabama, but injury happened in Mississippi.
-the substantive conflict here is that Alabama has a State employer’s liability Act and Mississippi does not; Mississippi had a fellow servants rule (almost completely dead now; anyway, a fellow servants rule prescribed that you were not liable for your fellow servants, which sought to benefit the employers; fellow servants rule is a bar to recovery by plaintiff) (so, if Alabama law applies, the plaintiff will get to the jury, but if Mississippi law applies, the claim will never make it to the jury)
-Court says the law to apply is the law where the injury takes place (this is the general choice of law rule for this case)
-Plaintiff says look at the contract: contract was signed in Alabama between two Alabama citizens (BUT the contract was an employment contract, and this COA did not arise out of the contract; SO NO)
-Plaintiff then claims that the negligence (i.e. failure to inspect the links) took place in Alabama, not Mississippi, and that Alabama law should therefore apply (BUT NO, in order to have a cause of action there must be an injury, and the injury is the last act for the manifestation of the claim, so the place of injury is the law that should apply)
-choice of law for personal injury or negligence cases is where the injury took place (ie the last act) (this is the general choice of law rule for this case)
Good things about this choice of law= easy to understand and apply; this rule is also uniform
Bad things about his choice of law= could lead to harsh results
Miliken- forum is SC of Mass. Parties are plaintiff Miliken (a business in Maine) and defendant wife of Mr. Pratt in Mass. This is a contract case (characterization). Facts: defendant wife wrote a guarantee in Mass. and sent it to plaintiffs in Maine (guaranteeing her husband’s credit). The substantive conflict of law is that Mass. does not allow married women to enter into contracts, but Maine law allows married women to enter into contracts.
-Plaintiffs win: Maine law applies (general rule is that the validity of a contract is to be determined by the law of the state in which the contract is made) (reas- the contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs was complete when the guaranty had been received and acted on by them at Portland, and not before)
-public policy= women’s equality (Mass. changed its statute to recognize the right of married women to contract, but only after this contract was made) (Court recognized the modern movement of women’s rights to enter into contracts, either married or unmarried, and they approved of this movement) (choice of law ruling that reflects movement in the law; Court is motivated to do something, and although the general rule is that the place where the contract was made is the law to apply, the Court bends to find a way to say the contract was made in Maine, and that contracts are not made until received and acted upon)
-if it’s a contract case, and the issue is the validity of the contract, the law to apply is the law of the place where the contract was made
TORT: -choice of law for personal injury or negligence cases is where the injury took place (ie the last act)
CONTRACT: -if it’s a contract case, and the issue is the validity of the contract, the law to apply is the law of the place where the contract was made
In Re Barrie’s Estate- this case is characterized as trusts and estates (validity of a will). Actually two forums here: first was in Illinois (Illinois applied Illinois law and said that the will was revoked), and second was in Iowa (brought on behalf of the church in Iowa who wanted the property, which the decedent wanted them to have in her will, which they now don’t want the heirs to get it)
-general conflict of law principle: the law of the place where the property is located will determine how that property passes in a trusts and estates instrument such as a will
-substantive conflict here is between the Illinois and Iowa law where under Illinois the will would be revoked, and under Iowa law it would not
-holding- the Illinois judgment denying probate to the will in question is not conclusive and binding upon the courts of this state
-matters respecting interests in movable property are governed by the law of the situs
White- couple moves from WV to PA. If PA law applies, the estate is split with wife and kids, and if WV law applies, wife gets everything.
-general rule: the law of the state in which the decedent had his domicile at the time of his death will control the succession and distribution of his personal estate where there is no will (WHAT IS DOMICILE?- 1) residence, actual or inchoate; and 2) the non-existence of any intention to make a domicile elsewhere) (1- action + 2- intention)
-here, there is no will, and if there was, then this might be controlled by the general rule of situs (BUT NO WILL HERE),
1) TORT: -choice of law for personal injury or negligence cases is where the injury took place (ie the last act)
CONTRACT: -if it’s a contract case, and the issue is the validity of the contract, the law to apply is the law of the place wher
oice of law rules), which in turn sent the case back to NY (Swiss choice of law rules pointed to NY as the place for personalty issues)
Navajo child is treated for flu at Indian Health Service Hospital in X state; returns home to Y state, becomes very sick and dies; a misdiagnosis occurs; X State’s law permits parents to recover broadly for the loss of child’s life; Y State limits recovery to loss of income; how should we analyze this problem (think of the traditional approach both with and without renvoi
-IT IS A PROCEDURAL DECISION FOR A COURT JUST TO DECIDE WHICH RULES TO APPLY IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHAT STATE’S LAW APPLIES (THE FORUM’S CHOICE OF LAW RULE ALWAYS APPLIES TO THE DECISION OF APPLYING CHOICE OF LAW RULES)
MISSED CLASS THURSDAY—TAKE NOTES ON PAGES 64-99
MODERN APPROACHES TO CHOICE OF LAW
-exceptions to the traditional choice of law rules give way to the modern approaches to choice of law
-UCC 1-301- allows for parties to contract for choice of law, and if no contract, the default is that the law of the forum applies
-BUT the agreement is not effective unless the transaction bears a reasonable relation to the State or country designated
-Also has a public policy exception
-burrowing statutes- directs the forum to dismiss claims under foreign statues of limitations in appropriate circumstances (usually where the SOL of the foreign state is shorter; a state can burrow a SOL from a foreign state that is shorter, but not longer)
-traditional SOL is procedural and the forum SOL applies
PARTY AUTONOMY AND THE RULE OF VALIDATION
-Pritchard- bond issued and signed in NY; under NY law there is no consideration, but under Louisiana law there would be consideration (substantive conflict); under traditional choice of law NY law would apply because NY was the place of the k…BUT the Court applied Louisiana law because the parties intended for Louisiana law to apply
-presumption in favor of validity is now a new exception (why would parties k in NY if they knew the k would not be enforceable in NY)
-Court says we will make an assumption that parties make Ks that are enforceable (which outweighs the traditional choice of law rule)
-Siegelman- personal injury suit where lady is injured on boat ride to France; boat leaves from NY; lady is from NY; ticket said England law should apply
-Court decided that England law applies
-Rule: in an adhesion k, the intention of the parties will prevail (if the k specifies a choice of law to apply, that Court should apply that choice of law)
-Big Issue at this point: When will it be that the issue is one which the parties can or cannot choose?