Conflicts of Law Outline

CONFLICTS OF LAW
JIMINEZ
FALL 2012
 
CHOICE OF LAW APPROACHES
 
·         Traditional “vested rights” approach  (1st rst)
·         Most Significant Relationship Approach (2d rst)
·         Governmental Interest Approach (Currie)
·         Better Law Approach (Leflar)
 
 
STATUTORY APPROACH
 
 
·         Statutory Directives
o   Some choice of law rules are governed by statutes rather than case law. If the forum has a statutory rule, the court must follow that directive, assuming it is constitutional
o   Example of choice of law statutes
§  Federal Tort Claims Act
·         subjects the US to the law of the place where the defendant’s acts or omissions occurred
§  “Borrowing” statutes
·         Many states have enacted special statutes of limitation that “borrow” the limitations period of the place where the cause of action arose or where the defendant resided.
·         Purpose is to prevent forum shopping. If the forum applies its own SOL then a plaintiff will be encouraged to choose a forum that will hear its case.
 
 
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO CHOICE OF LAW
 
 
TRADITIONAL “VESTED RIGHTS” APPROACH
·         Rule: The forum in every case will apply the law of the state in which the rights of the parties vest
o   Rights are “vested” in the place where they are “created”
§  In other words, the state in which the particular act occurred or the particular relationship was created
§  Ex) Plaintiff is injured in state X. Forum state Y will have to apply state X’s law to all substantive issue because that is where the act occurred.
·         Two-step Analysis
o   (1) Characterization
§  The forum court must first “characterize” the lawsuit into a “basic” legal category.
·         Ex) torts, contracts, property, marriage
o   (2) Localizing the Connecting Factor
§  Court must then localize the significant event or thing (the connecting factor) to a particular state
·         Ex) tort claim is localized where the injury occurred. Contract claim may be where the breach occurred or the contract was formed.
·         Application without regard to substance
o   The forum will “mechanically apply the law of the jdx without regard to its substantive content (not going to worry about the unique facts of the case)
§  Rationale: the traditional approach believes in “simple in form and capable of easy administration should promote uniformity of result, enhance predictability, and discourage forum shopping.”
 
CHOICE OF LAW IN SPECIFIC SUBSTANTIVE AREAS
 
TORTS
·         Traditional approach Rule: applies the law where the accident occurred
o   Lex Loci Delicti – “law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed”
o   1st Rst Approach
o   Today, almost completely discredited
o   Case: Alabama Great Southern RR . Carroll
§  Facts: P is citizen of AL, D is employer and also AL corporation.  P was brakeman on trains, injured when link broke and injury occurs – MS.  Evidence was that link was already defectively inspected in AL. P has case for recover under Employer’s liability act in Al, but no law in MS.  No cause of action (negligence of fellow servants) there.  
§  Holding: Mississippi law applied
·         Even though nearly every contact in this case was in Alabama (the forum state), as long as the place of the wrong was in Mississippi, that law will apply because Alabama follows the “place of the wrong” rule.
·         Note: The state could have characterized the case as a contract dispute, not torts, and possibly apply the law of the place of contract, Alabama.
·         Rationale
o   It was only fair that the ∆ be judged according to the standards in effect where she acted rather than the standards where she was sued.
·         Where is the place of the “wrong?”
o   Generally, the place of the wrong is the place where the π’s injuries were sustained.
o   First Rst § 377: The place of the “wrong” is “where the last event necessary to make the actor liable took place.”
o   How about non-physical wrongs? Where did the accident occur?
§  Defamation
§  Invasion of privacy
·         Criticisms
o   Fortuitous Results
§  Results were all determined based on where you accident happened to happen and no other considerations.
§  Ex) An accident occurs in State A by involving two parties from State B and were merely passing through State A. State B parties don’t have any connection with State A, just that they happened to be driving through.
o   Policy of Other States Defeated
§  Rule frequently defeated the policies and laws of states having far more significant contacts with the parties and their injuries
§  Ex) The state where the π was domiciled was no doubt far more concerned with compensation than the state where the impact took place
·         “Exceptions” to the place of wrong rule
o   Characterization as “procedural”
§  See below Characterization
§  Court may classify a particular aspect of a tort problem as “procedural,” the court could thus avoid reference to otherwise applicable foreign law
·         Procedural -> forum law governs
·         Substantive -> foreign law governs
§  Way for courts to “pay lip service” to the traditional rule but really evading the rule
o   Characterization as “nontort” problem
§  To avoid unfavorable law at the place of injury, courts might characterize the basic problem as something other than “tort”
§  Ex) Call a case a contract issue rather than tort issue
§  Case: Levy v. Daniels’ U-Drive
·         Facts: ∆ breaches negligently breaches a duty of care arising from a contractual relationship.
·         Holding: Court applies to choose to apply a “contracts” choice of law rule
§  Case: Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co.
·         Facts: Wife wanted to sue her husband for negligence. A Wisconsin court had to determine whether the dispute was about torts or capacity to sue. If tort, then California law (wife no capacity to sue) would apply because it was where the accident occurred. If capacity to sue then Wisconsin law (wife has capacity) would apply because the domicile of the spouses.
·         Holding: Wisconsin law applied.
o   The court concludes that the real nature of the dispute is about capacity to sue, and so domicile law governs. The law of the domicile was the forum law here.
o   Conduct rather than Injury
§  Where the ∆’s conduct is shown to be morally blameworthy, a number of courts have designated the conduct, rather than the injury, as the “wrong” in order to apply the law of the place of the wrong
§  Case: Gordon v. Parker
·         Facts:
·         Holding: Forum law applied. Adulterous conduct took place within the forum, even though all the parties were domiciled in