true conflicts
Lilienthal v Kaufman (Ore. 1964)
- D (Ore) went to Cal and entered into
an agreement w/ P (Cal) for joint
venture
- D executed in Cal two promissory
notes
- P demanded payment on notes
- D declared spendthrift under Ore law
- No such law in Cal
Bernkrant v Fowler (Cal. 1961)
• People v One 1953 Ford Victoria
•
•
•
•
•
automobile mortgaged in TX
moved to Cal by mortgagor
seized in connection with drug trafficking
mortgagee’s interest forfeit under Cal law
Should Cal or Tex law by applied by a Cal
court?
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.”
• P, Cal corp, sent VP to La, injured by
negligence of employee of La corp.
• Cal law allows suits by corp for loss of services
of employee
• La law does not
– 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
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….