Leflar – choice influencing considerations predictability of results maintenance of interstate and int’l legal orders simplification of judicial task advancement of forum interest choosing better rule of law

Dépeçage

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

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 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 (7th Cir. 1981)