1. Grant v McAuliffe (Cal 1953)

2. P ships goods in Mass using D as transport P received printed bill of lading which contains limitations on liability Under law of Mass, this bill is not sufficient to show that P assented to limitation Under law of NH, it is P sues D in NH Should court assume that liability is limited?

3. § 595. Proof Of Facts (1) The law of the forum governs the proof in court of a fact alleged. (2) The law of the forum governs presumptions and inferences to be drawn from evidence.

4. P, in Arizona, is injured by the alleged negligence of D. P sues D in California. By the law of Arizona, a plaintiff has no cause of action until he has shown that his own negligence did not contribute to his injury. By the law of California, contributory negligence is an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. Must P show freedom from contributory negligence?

5. Comment to 595 Thus, if a requirement concerning proof of freedom from fault exists in the law of the place of injury and if such condition is there interpreted as a condition of the cause of action itself, or as affecting the nature or amount of recovery, the court at the forum will apply the rule of the foreign state (see § 385). In such a case, the remedial and substantive portions of the foreign law are so bound together that the application of the usual procedural rule of the forum would seriously alter the effect of the operative facts under the law of the appropriate foreign state.

6. § 606. Limitation Of Amount Recoverable If a statute of the forum limits the amount which in any action of a certain class may be recovered in its courts, no greater amount can be recovered though under the law of the state which created the cause of action, a greater recovery would be justified or required.

7. Comment: a. Interpretation of statutes. Such a limitation is imposed only by a statute; and it is a question of interpretation whether the statute qualifies the cause of action, applying therefore only to a cause of action created by the statute, wherever sued on; or whether it is to be construed as limiting the amount of recovery in any action of the type described brought in the state, wherever the right was created; or whether (as in some instances) it has both effects.

8. Kilberg v NE Airlines Plane crash in Mass Ticket bought in NY NY P, Mass D Mass limitation on damages for wrongful death Suit in NY Does the Mass limit on damages apply?

9. - Two Nevadans get into a car accident in Nevada - Suit is brought in California - Both California and Nevada have a limitation on damages - Four scenarios: 1) California's and Nevada's are substantive 2)California's and Nevada's are procedural 3) California's is substantive and Nevada's is procedural 4) California's is procedural and Nevada's is substantive

10. § 603. Statute Of Limitations Of Forum If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose. § 604. Foreign Statute Of Limitations If action is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, an action can be maintained, though action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose.

11. § 605. Time Limitations On Cause Of Action If by the law of the state which has created a right of action, it is made a condition of the right that it shall expire after a certain period of limitation has elapsed, no action begun after the period has elapsed can be maintained in any state.

12. - Two Nevadans get into a car accident in Nevada - Wrongful death suit is brought in California - Both California and Nevada have statute of limitation for wrongful death of 1 year - Four scenarios: 1) California's and Nevada's are built in 2)California's and Nevada's are procedural 3) California's is built in and Nevada's is procedural 4) California's is procedural and Nevada's is built in

13. Bournias v Atlantic Maritime Co Ltd. (2d Cir. 1955)

14. renvoi désistement

15. Wisconsin court entertains an accident in California involving a couple domiciled in Minnesota California has interspousal immunity Minnesota does not Wisconsin uses law of place of the wrong for tort Renvoi – Fact that a California court would use Minnesota law is a reason to use Minnesota law Désistement – Fact that a California court would use Minnesota law is a reason not to use California law

16. in re Schneider’s Estate (Sur. Ct. N.Y. 1950)

17. The primary reason for its existence lies in the fact that the law-making and law-enforcing agencies of the country in which land is situated have exclusive control over such land. As only the courts of that country are ultimately capable of rendering enforceable judgments affecting the land, the legislative authorities thereof have the exclusive power to promulgate the law which shall regulate its ownership and transfer.…If an instrument which was intended to transfer that land did not meet the standards set by that law or violated some provision thereof regarding the land, the courts had the physical power to deny it effect and enforce instead the rights decreed by the law of that country or the law of any other country which the law-making agencies deemed appropriate in a particular case. Hence, the rights which were created in that land are those which existed under the whole law of the situs and as would be enforced by those courts which normally would possess exclusive judicial jurisdiction. If another court, in this case our own, is thrust into a position where it is obliged to adjudicate the same questions concerning title to that land, or a substitute therefor, it should be guided by the methods which would be employed in the country of situs.

18. Section 8. Rule in questions of title to land or divorce. (1) All questions of title to land are decided in accordance with the law of the state where the land is, including the Conflict of Laws rules of that State. (2) All questions concerning the validity of a decree of divorce are decided in accordance with the law of the domicile of the parties, including the Conflict of Laws rules of that State.’

19. 2 nd Restatement Renvoi if - the objective of the particular choice of law rule is that the forum reach the same decision as that of another state (on the same facts) – Examples: validity and effect of transfer of interests in land and succession of interests in movables in a decedents estate

20. Massachusetts wants marriages celebrated in Mass to be valid if they are valid according to a standard upon which the parties might have reasonably relied Mass will treat a marriage entered into in Mass as valid if it is in accordance with Mass law or the law of the parties’ domicile Two Virginians who are cousins get married in Mass Marriage is illegal under Mass law but not Virginia law Marriage is being adjudicated by a Wisconsin court, which uses the place of celebration rule

21. - CA ct is determining validity of will concerning personalty in CA - decedent was domiciled in CA at time of execution of will and executed will in CA - but decedent was domiciled in NY at time of death - will is invalid under NY standard but not under CA standard - CA's choice of law rules is that the domicile of the decedent at death determines the validity of a will - NY wants to protect the expectation of the testator, so says a will is valid if it is valid under the law of either the domicile at the time of execution, or the domicile at death or the place of execution