1. Mon. Mar. 17

2. New York’s Neumeier Rules

3. Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993)

4. 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….

5. The second Neumeier rule: P’s domicile’s loss-allocating rule would allow P to win D’s domicile’s loss-allocating rule would allow D to win Then use place of injury

6. Third Neumeier rule, applicable to other split-domicile cases: usually governing law will be that of the place where the accident occurred, unless “displacing that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multistate system or producing great uncertainty for litigants”

7. Edwards v. Erie Coach Lines Co. (NY 2011)

8. Dépeçage

9. Adams (NY domiciliary) is member of NY organization Enrolls in its nature program Truck takes him to Mass Breaks down Farmer with unregistered truck offers to take them the rest of way Truck hits Adams, but not negligent Mass law: driver unlicensed car is outlaw – liability w/o fault NY requires negligence Mass has charitable immunity NY does not

10. Currie: “While Massachusetts has a policy of deterring the operation of unlicensed vehicles, it does not extend that policy to charities…. While New York has a policy of requiring compensation for its injured residents, it has no policy of imposing liability in the absence of negligence. To impose liability on this New York corporation, which has been free from fault, simply in order to carry out a nonexistent Massachusetts policy of deterrence, seems to me to be entirely unjustified….”

11. Maryland Cas v Jacek (D.N.J. 1957) Suit by MD insurer for declaratory judgment concerning liability under auto insurance policy Issued in NJ to NJ domiciliaries D had driven car with wife in NY – accident there NJ – Insurer liable for any successful suit against insured BUT spousal immunity NY – no spousal immunity BUT if spouse is successfully sued, insurer not liable

12. renvoi désistement

13. Pfau v Trent Aluminum Co. (NJ 1970)

14. 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.

15. Contract in CT, performance in Mass Mass court would use law of place of contracting CT court would use law of place of performance

16. - 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?