true conflicts

Bernkrant v Fowler (Cal. 1961)

Bernhard v Harrah’s Club (Cal. 1976)

Resident of Mass, driving truck in CT, causes injury to CT P D broke speed limit, which creates irrebuttable presumption of negligence under CT law, but not under Mass law “If the [Mass] driver causes injury to [a CT] resident while driving in [CT] at a speed in excess of the [CT] speed limit, [CT]'s per se rule should be applied. [CT] has an interest in implementing its regulatory provision, and its interest in the application of its loss-distribution rule offsets [Mass]'s corresponding loss-distribution interest.”

Assume instead both P and D are from Mass Accident in CT “The [CT] regulatory interest will not be impaired significantly if it is subordinated in the comparatively rare instances involving two nonresidents, who are residents of a state or states that reject the per se subrule. Conduct on [CT] highways will not be affected by knowledge of [Mass] residents that the [CT] per se rule will not be applied to them if the person they injure happens to be a co-citizen.”

Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co. (Cal. 1978) P, Cal corporation, sent VP to La There VP was injured by negligence of employee of La corporation Cal law allows suits by a corporation for loss of services of employee La law does not

- In true conflict uphold background policies of area of law - In true conflict uphold background policies of area of law? - Oregon and CA each have +5 interest in upholding contracts - Oregon has a +6 interest in protecting spendthrifts - apply CA law -1 for Oregon, +5 for CA - apply Oregon law +1 for Oregon, -5 for CA

New York’s Neumeier Rules

Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993) - Cooney (MO) injured in MO by machinery owned by Mueller (MO) - Machinery manufactured by Hill Acme - Sold in NY through Osgood (NY) to a Buffalo Co that later sold it to Mueller - Cooney received workers comp from Mueller - Brought NY products liability action against Osgood - Osgood impleaded Mueller & Hill Acme for contribution - Under MO law, if you’ve paid workers comp you are freed of other obligations, including 3rd party contribution actions - Mueller liable for contribution under NY law

Under the first Neumeier rule, if parties share a common domicile, and that domicile’s law has a loss allocating rule, then that law should control….

The second Neumeier rule: P’s domicile’s loss-allocating rule would allow P to win D’s domicile’s loss-allocating rule would allow D to win Then use place of injury

P (NY) guest of D (Ontario) if accident in NY, then P wins accident in Ontario, then D wins

Third Neumeier rule, applicable to other split-domicile cases: usually governing law will be that of the place where the accident occurred, unless “displacing that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multistate system or producing great uncertainty for litigants”

Guest (Ontario) sues Host (NY) Accident in Ontario Guest (Michigan) sues Host (NY) Accident in Ontario Guest (NY) sues Host (Michigan) Accident in Ontario