1. Mon. Feb. 22

2. interest analysis

3. Harris v. Harris (Ga. 1984) two married but separated Georgians get into car accident in Georgia in which husband is negligent – wife sues does Georgia spousal immunity rule apply?

4. In Harris v. Harris, does the court takes into account…
In Harris v. Harris, does the court takes into account…? avoidance of fraudulent suits marital harmony compensation to wife deterrence of negligent husbands

5. two married Californians get into car accident in Georgia in which husband is negligent, wife sues does Georgia’s spousal immunity rule apply?

6. California is interested in its negligence law applying
California is interested in its negligence law applying - compensation Georgia is not interested in its spousal immunity law applying

7. Does the court take all considerations into account: compensation to wife (Ca) deterrence of negligent husbands avoidance of fraudulent suits marital harmony

8. false conflicts

9. finding false conflicts…

10. Tooker v. Lopez (NY 1969)

11. Fuld’s concurrence…

12. Breitel’s dissent

13. What about Susan Silk?

14. Schultz v Boy Scouts of America (NY 1985)

15. conduct-regulating loss-allocating

16. conduct-regulating…

17. Creates liability and is conduct regulating…. example
Creates liability and is conduct regulating…? example? Blocks liability and is conduct regulating…? example?

18. loss-allocating

19. Creates liability and is loss-allocating…. example
Creates liability and is loss-allocating…? example? Blocks liability and is loss-allocating…? example?

20. Is negligence law conduct regulating or loss allocating or both?

21. Assume that a jurisdiction does not have a cause of action for tortious interference of contract - conduct-regulating? - loss-allocating? - both?

22. Abogados v. AT&T (9th Cir. 2000) NY corp engages in interference of contract in Jalisco concerning Mexican co. Mexican co. sues under NY law, which has a cause of action for tortious interference of contact Jaliscan law does not

23. Why is charitable immunity loss-allocating?

24. Does the common domicile of P and D matter for charitable immunity?

25. - assume the Schultz’s are domiciled in NY - the Boy Scouts are domiciled in TX - but the scout camp is always in NJ, where the molestation occurs

26. Why doesn’t New York law apply?

27. The three reasons most often urged in support of applying the law of the forum-locus in cases such as this are: (1) to protect medical creditors who provided services to injured parties in the locus State, (2) to prevent injured tort victims from becoming public wards in the locus State and (3) the deterrent effect application of locus law has on future tort-feasors in the locus State.

28. The first two reasons share common weaknesses
The first two reasons share common weaknesses. First, in the abstract, neither reason necessarily requires application of the locus jurisdiction's law, but rather invariably mandates application of the law of the jurisdiction that would either allow recovery or allow the greater recovery. They are subject to criticism, therefore, as being biased in favor of recovery.

29. Finally, although it is conceivable that application of New York's law in this case would have some deterrent effect on future tortious conduct in this State, New York's deterrent interest is considerably less because none of the parties is a resident and the rule in conflict is loss-allocating rather than conduct- regulating.

30. Kell v. Henderson (N. Y. Sup. Ct
Kell v. Henderson (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965) Residents of Ontario Trip begins and ends in Ontario Accident in NY Court applied NY law, not Ontario guest statute

31. Dissent: [T]here can be little doubt that New York has an interest in insuring that justice be done to nonresidents who have come to this State and suffered serious injuries herein. There is no cogent reason to deem that interest any weaker whether such guests are here for the purpose of conducting business or personal affairs, or, as in this case, have chosen to spend their vacation in New York. Likewise, it cannot be denied that this State has a strong legitimate interest in deterring serious tortious misconduct, including the kind of reprehensible malfeasance that has victimized the nonresident infant plaintiffs in this case.

32. P sues D under a theory of respondeat superior for the torts of the employee. D alleges charitable immunity. P sues D for negligent hiring. D alleges charitable immunity.

33. “As to defendant Franciscan Brothers, this action requires an application of the third of the rules set forth in Neumeier because the parties are domiciled in different jurisdictions with conflicting loss-distribution rules and the locus of the tort is New York, a separate jurisdiction. In that situation the law of the place of the tort will normally apply, unless displacing it ‘”will advance” the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants’”

34. For the same reasons stated in our analysis of the action against defendant Boy Scouts, application of the law of New Jersey in plaintiffs' action against defendant Franciscan Brothers would further that State's interest in enforcing the decision of its domiciliaries to accept the burdens as well as the benefits of that State's loss-distribution tort rules and its interest in promoting the continuation and expansion of defendant's charitable activities in that State.

35. Conversely, although application of New Jersey's law may not affirmatively advance the substantive law purposes of New York, it will not frustrate those interests because New York has no significant interest in applying its own law to this dispute.

36. Finally, application of New Jersey law will enhance "the smooth working of the multi-state system" by actually reducing the incentive for forum shopping and it will provide certainty for the litigants whose only reasonable expectation surely would have been that the law of the jurisdiction where plaintiffs are domiciled and defendant sends its teachers would apply, not the law of New York where the parties had only isolated and infrequent contacts as a result of Coakeley's position as Boy Scout leader.

37. “unprovided-for” cases

38. Grant variation
Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona
Californian dies
Arizonan sues Californian’s estate
AZ has no survivorship of actions
Cal does

39. Ontario guest riding in NYer’s car
accident in Ontario
Ontario has guest statute
NY doesn’t

40. unprovided-for case: P’s domicile’s loss-allocating law benefits D (by prohibiting action) D’s domicile’s law loss-allocating benefits P (by allowing action) wrongdoing is in P’s domicile, which has no conduct regulating interest

41. Currie: Use law that is most humane and enlightened Use forum law

42. Kramer’s solution - affirmative defense of P’s domicile does not apply - but cause of action for relief of P’s domicile does apply

43. Erwin v. Thomas (Or. 1973) - P (Wash) suing D (Ore) in Ore Ct for injury in Wash - Suit is for loss of consortium - Wash does not allow such suits by women (only men) - Ore does

44. “Washington has decided that the rights of a married woman whose husband is injured are not sufficiently important to cause the negligent defendant who is responsible for the injury to pay the wife for her loss. It has weighed the matter in favor of protection of defendants. No Washington defendant is going to have to respond for damages in the present case, since the defendant is an Oregonian.”

45. “On the other hand, what is Oregon's interest
“On the other hand, what is Oregon's interest? Oregon, obviously, is protective of the rights of married women and believes that they should be allowed to recover for negligently inflicted loss of consortium. However, it is stretching the imagination more than a trifle to conceive that the Oregon Legislature was concerned about the rights of all the nonresident married women in the nation whose husbands would be injured outside of the state of Oregon.”

46. Casey v Mason
Ore wife brings loss of consortium action against Wash D for accident in Wash

47. Variation on Hurtado (Cal
Variation on Hurtado (Cal. 1974) - Ps from Mexican state of Zacatecas sue Californian for wrongful death due to an accident in Zacatecas - Zacatecan law had a limit on the amount of damages for wrongful death (part of the cause of action, not an affirmative defense) - California law had no such limit

48. Grant variation variation Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona Californian dies Arizonan sues Californian’s estate AZ has no survivorship of actions Neither does CA!

49. Grant variation variation Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona Californian dies Arizonan sues Californian’s estate Under AZ law, the defendant being alive is an element of a cause of action for negligence CA law allows survivorship

50. Grant variation Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona Californian dies Arizonan sues Californian’s estate AZ has no survivorship of actions Cal does Kramer – inapplicability of AZ affirmative defense means that AZ cause of action applies Green – inapplicability of CA negligence action means that CA no-liability background law applies