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
§ 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.
Kramer: “If choice of law is substantive (in the sense that it defines the parties' rights), then courts should not alter choice-of-law rules for complex cases. The reasoning is straightforward. We start with claims that everyone concedes would otherwise be adjudicated under different laws. We combine these claims, whether through transfer and consolidation or by certifying a class, on the ground that we can adjudicate the parties' rights more effectively and efficiently in one big proceeding. So far, so good. Then, having constructed this proceeding, we are told we must change the parties' rights to facilitate the consolidated adjudication. And that makes no sense. If the reason for consolidating is to make adjudication of the parties' rights more efficient and effective, then the fact of consolidation itself cannot justify changing those rights. To let it do so is truly to let the tail wag the dog.”
Husband and wife from California get in accident in Nevada Nevada has spousal immunity California doesn’t Case brought before Nevada court, which uses 1 st Restatement, which law applied? Case brought before California court which uses interest analysis, which law applied?
Home Ins. Co. v Dick (US 1930) - Dick sues Mexican insurance co. and its US reinsurers under insurance contract for loss of boat in Mex waters - defense: outside 1 year limitation period in contract - limitation is valid under Mexican law - contract issued in Mexico to Mexican who assigned it to Dick (who was Mexican resident at time) - Mexican choice-of-law provision - contract to be performed in Mexico
article 5545 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes “No person, firm, corporation, association or combination of whatsoever kind shall enter into any stipulation, contract, or agreement, by reason whereof the time in which to sue thereon is limited to a shorter period than two years. And no stipulation, contract, or agreement for any such shorter limitation in which to sue shall ever be valid in this State.”
Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
14 th Amendment “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”