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