Dépeçage

renvoi désistement

Pfau v Trent Aluminum Co.
(NJ 1970)

First, it is not definite that plaintiff would be unable to recover in either of those states.
More importantly, however we, see no reason for applying Connecticut's choice-of-law rule.
To do so would frustrate the very goals of governmental-interest analysis. Connecticut's choice-of-law rule does not identify that state's interest in the matter. Lex loci delicti was born in an effort to achieve simplicity and uniformity, and does not relate to a state's interest in having its law applied to given issues in a tort case.

Contract in CT, performance in Mass
CT law valid, Mass law invalid
Mass court would use law of place of contracting
CT court would use law of place of performance

- CA court is entertaining an action brought by a NY guest against an
Ontario host concerning an accident in Ontario.
- NY court would apply Ontario law
- does that mean that a CA ct cannot apply NY law?

complex litigation

In re Air Crash Disaster near
Chicago
(7 th Cir. 1981)

Filed in: CA, NY, Mich, Hawaii, PR
P’s domiciles: CA, CT, Hawaii, Ill, Ind, Mass,
Mich, NJ, NY, VT, PR, Japan, Netherlands,
Saudi Arabia
D’s domicile: McDD: MO, American (NY or
TX)
Place of harm: Ill.
Place of wrongdoing: McDD (CA – designing), American (OK – servicing)
Punitives: Yes - MO, TX, OK No – Ill, CA, NY

Illinois – 2 nd Restatement

• § 145. The General Principle
(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6.

• (2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(a) the place where the injury occurred,
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred,
(c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.

Nor do the domiciliary states have an interest in imposing punitive damages on the defendants. The legitimate interests of these states, after all, are limited to assuring that the plaintiffs are adequately compensated for their injuries and that the proceeds of any award are distributed to the appropriate beneficiaries. Those interests are fully served by applying the law of the plaintiffs' domiciles as to issues involving the measure of compensatory damages
(insofar as that law would enhance the plaintiffs' recovery) and the distribution of any award. Once the plaintiffs are made whole by recovery of the full measure of compensatory damages to which they are entitled under the law of their domiciles, the interests of those states are satisfied.