Modern Approach - Interest Analysis

Question 1

Interest Analysis

Answer 1

A court faced with a claim based on a set of facts should look at the law, determine the purpose, interpret the law, and then determine which law should apply out of many laws that may appear to be conflicting.

language, history, purpose

Question 2

False vs. True Conflicts

Answer 2

If only one state has an interest, this is a false conflict and the law of the interested state should apply

If both states have an interest, this is a true conflict:

i. Balance the interests: is one state more interested?
ii. If both states are equally interested, apply forum law
1) This encourages forum shopping
2) It will also create different results depending on where the case is brought
e. If neither state has an interest, apply forum law

Question 3

False Conflicts - Conflicts within the same jurisdiction:

Marek v. Chesny

Answer 3

False Conflict: when two or more states are involved in the dispute and only one is “interested” in having its law applied.

court held that FRCP 68 policy of promoting and encouraging settlements applies across the board, even in civil rights cases; plaintiff “lost” because the ultimate award was less favorable than the settlement offer, so he was not entitled to attorney’s fees; this result demonstrates reconciliation between the two conflicting rules so that it can be considered a “false conflict”.

Question 4

Identifying False Conflicts

Tooker v. Lopez

Answer 4

NY domiciliaries, NY car, MI accident, MI guest statute.

classic false conflict!, NY has real interest and MI doesn’t.

Purpose of MI statute was to protect MI insurance companies. N/a here b/c car insured in NY.

Question 5

Loss-allocation versus conduct-regulating rules

Answer 5

Conduct-regulating rules operate territorially (rules are tied to the place of injury)

Loss-allocating rules involve the relationship of the party (rules follow the person)

Question 6

Neumier Loss Allocation Rules

Answer 6

1) When a passenger and driver are from the same state and the car is insured there, the law of that state will apply regardless of where the injury occurred
2) When the accident occurs in a state with a guest statute and the driver is domiciled there, that state’s law should apply (no liability under the law of the victim’s state)
3) When the accident occurs in a state where the state permits recovery, the guest may recover and a defendant cannot assert his own state’s guest statute as a defense (guest statutes are loss-allocating and the law of the domicile applies when loss-allocating rules are at issue)
4) When the guest and the driver are from different states, the law of the state where the accident occurred will apply unless the following is shown:
• Displacement of the law will advance relevant substantive law purposes
• Without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants

Question 7

Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America

Answer 7

1) New Jersey’s interest (charitable immunity):
• Protect and support charitable organizations (loss-allocating rule)
• Where rules are loss-allocating, the state’s interest and the party’s reliance on those rules are less important
2) New York’s interest (no charitable immunity):
• Deter tortious behavior in New York (conduct-regulating rule)
• Where rules are conduct-regulating, the place of tort will usually have a predominant or exclusive concern
3) Court held that the NY conduct-regulating interest is weak in this case because the primary issue in this case is loss-allocation

Question 8

Babcock (Most Significant Contacts - NY)

Answer 8

all components other than accident are NY, accident in Ontario, Ontario statute barring recovery by guest against host driver

the parties had no substantial relationship with Ontario. It would be unfair to apply its law (denying recovery). The court weighed the “contacts” between the parties, their transaction, and the respective jurisdictions. It then decided that the place of the negligent act and the injury was fortuitous, whereas the domicile of the parties, the place where their relationship was centered, and the origin and anticipated conclusion of their trip (New York) had more significant “contacts” with them and their transaction. Hence, New York had the “most significant” contacts with respect to this legal relationship