View
220
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 COL Course 3.02
1/4
Conflicts of laws 3/2/2014
Governmental interests approach what did the legislature look to when it adopted the rule>>
Interest analysis thinking about the purposes of the law
To what problem is this common law rule a solution? What is the purpose of this rule and what does
it achieve?
Milliken v !ratt "reinard #urrie$s opinion suggestion to simplify lives in #%& issues by'
a( Identify and cone out false conflicts determine whether the laws which are apparently in
conflict are really in conflict are the policies behind each state's law connected to the
state'sfactual connections to the case?? Do the purposes of one state connect to the facts of the
case?? f not! false conflict" #hen apply law of interested $urisdiction" %ee if policies are
implicated in the specific case"
b& #rue conflict purposes of laws connect to contacts and purposes of ( laws connect to
( contacts simplify life) apply the law of the forum! which sol*es true conflicts easier) don$t
try to balance the interests) not a *udicial function+ if it leads to forum shopping deal with it If#%& is the reason you are suing too open,ended to choose a special forum+ forum shopping is not
uni-ue to #%& rules may be tolerable if it leads to defensible results) which are in reality not that
bad
Interest analysis statutory interepretation analysis what are the policies behind laws) not look
what is in the best interest of the state This approach has tremendous virtues) but also some big
disadvantages
#hesny look at te.t) legislative history+ common law articulating purposes get it wrong+
1& #oo+er *" ,ope-! .! 1
acts) / students) going to Michigan) 01 domiciliars) had an accident in MI) automobile
insured in 01
Contacts)01 !laintiff) 2efendant) 3orum) Insurance+ Michigan' accident happened
&aws in conflict' Michigan' guest statute bars recovery 4wilful misconduct or gross negligence of
driver have to be shown(+ 01' no guest statute
5esult' 01 law applies) plaintiff recovers
Weren$t they students in residence at Michigan state 4?( standard test of domicile' physical
presence6 intent to remain for a time at least in the state 4White case(+ right for some of purposes)
but not the kind of residence that woudl apply here in #%&+ 789:$s not the kind of residence that
would trigger a change in domicile
olicies behind a uest statute) e.pectations of the insurance company) abuses by foreigners in the
state) collusive lawsuits 4similar to intra,marital suits( fraud on insurance company) fraud on the
courts relates to the forum) guests shouldn$t be ingrates to drivers !olice the relationship between
drivers and guests) encourage people to give other people rides 4'((( , linked to the common
domicile of !s and 2s) they wouldn$t be sued later on !rotecting others' third parties non,guests$priorities in the defendants$ assets) bigger pot of money for them to recover 2ym v Gordon does
the court still apply the doctrine the inference was unsupported by actual law history and
8/12/2019 COL Course 3.02
2/4
unsupported by the standard of negligence 4no connection standard of negligence and the policy+ no
connection between purpose and standard of negligence( doesn$t even consider that purpose
amnymore
olicy behind not ha*in a uest statute) compensation for those who are in$ured by the
nelience of the dri*er"
Case harder) ! and 2 are from different states %r where was the offer for a ride made??
Matter of common domicile of ! and 2
The #ourt believes that it can be purpose for the guest statute that doesn$t hold very well
changed its mind and came up with a better articulation of purpose The #ourt is improving its work
product) its interest analysis
!olicy behind 01$s statute' !laintiff$s domicile compensate all !laintiffs, false conflict?? #urey
apply the law of 01 only its purposes are advanced on the facts) the purposes behind Michigan
law are not advanced on the facts) no contacts which relates with the facts a classic false conflict
0one of the purposes are implicatedon the facts
Irrelevant accident in MI not talking about interests generally Michigan has some contacts) but
not implicated hereThe insuror covers the in*uries created by 0ew 1orkers outside of 01 4out of
state conduct( reduces Michigan$s connections?? Insurance used to enforce the application of
01 law) to allow liability saying' might have been worried by unfair surprise on insurance
company , but the policy itself says otherwise ;> no interest of MI
Critic) 0ot only Tooker and &ope< in #ar Ms =ilk lived in Michigan -uestion' does the
analysis mean that the MI guest cannot recover) but that the 01 guest can?? Would this be the effect
of the decision?? 42issent underlines this( Mi domiciliary couldn$t recover discrimination
defensible the guests in car were aware of the scope of the law Different laws apply to different
people in the same accident this is a possibility of C5, rules" .o obliation of reco*ery
between .ew or+ers? (enefit of 6 law to %il+ and also the burden of 6 law? ctually for
a lawyer these are different accidents! the *ictims in the car aren't similarly situated"
ccidental location
01 would have thedominant interest in some aspects of this case
&oss,aloccating rules should be handled differently 2iffers from a conduct,regulating rule
tomorrow
3alse conflict between 01 and MI statute 01 policy behind guest statute' prevention of
fruadulent claims against local insurers) collusive law suits
ow is the purpose implicated furthered by the application of theMI law? !urpose cannot ever be
vindicated by the MI law The dominant purpose belongs to 01 3alse conflict) 01 law applies
!ossibility that this approach means that the MI domiciliary cannot recover) doesn$t treat likes alike@
Interstate discrimination issues isn$t presented and not decided 2ifferent choices of law for
different people
8/12/2019 COL Course 3.02
3/4
2& %chult- *" (oy %couts! .! 178 called'reverse Tooker?
Interest analysis criticism' pro,plaintiff? 5esolution' apply law of the forum+ forum bias towards
own law ;> forum,biased "oy =cots shows it is not only biased toward forum
3acts' allegations of abuse by employees of "oy =couts) took place in 01 %ne of the charities
domiciliaries of 0A "oy =couts at the time of the suit) they later moved to Te.as 4TB(+ =uit' 01The other one' in %hio 0A, plaintiff is domiciled here) suicide here) 3ranicscan "rothers domiciled
in 0A) although incorporated in %
&aws in conflict' difference in charitable immunity statutes 0A has one) 01 hasn$t got one+ 01'
no immunity) charities should be treated like everybody else
Immunity laws of the other *urisdiction' no immunity in TB) %hio' -ualified immunity
3irst 5estatement' 01 law should have applied territorial approach ; where the in*ury occured)
unless any escape device applies
Interest analysis , !urposes behind laws
9#he only facts or contacts which define state interest loo+ at those rules which show the
purposes of the particular laws in conflict9 What is the policy behind the rules in conflict? ,
I0TC5C=T D0D&1=I= TC#0IEFC
#ommon domicile ! and 2 are domiciled in the same state Genetic marker of a false conflict is
common domicile@@ The law of the common domicile 0A , gave immunity to charities) but the law
of the tort place didn$t
3alse conflict common domicile hint+ law of common domicile will apply
5everse Tooker reason for referring to it like this' common domicile was the forum ere the
forum is applying the law of another forum 40A( ;> this is the distinction between the decisions
#ar accident if there was one) 01 speed limits would be the applicable law 45ules of the 5oad
regulate conduct If you have conduct,regulating rules' likely to be in the dominant interest of the
state where the conduct occurs@@ "FT
"FT@@ &oss,aloccating rules will be treated differently) in the view of the court The state that has
the dominant interest who bears the loss? !ost,event rules the violation of the conduct rule has
occured+ post,event remedial rules 2istribute the burden of the loss The *urisdiction of thecommon domicile has a dominant interest in liability
3ake distinction because every allocation of loss incentivi
8/12/2019 COL Course 3.02
4/4
3irst 5estatement characteri
Recommended