Thurs. Mar. 17.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Thurs. Nov. 8. counterclaims 13(a) Compulsory Counterclaim. (1) In General. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that — at the time of its.

Advertisements

Mon. Mar. 17. New York’s Neumeier Rules Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993)

Traditional choice-of-law approach for torts law of the place of the harm.

Dépeçage. renvoi désistement Pfau v Trent Aluminum Co. (NJ 1970)

New York’s Neumeier Rules

Interest analysis. Tooker v. Lopez (NY 1969) Dym v Gordon (NY 1965) P and D both NY domiciliaries BUT taking courses at U of Colo Collision with another.

Wood Bros Homes v Walker Adj Bureau (Colo. 1979).

Broderick v Rosner NY law allows piercing the corporate veil concerning NY banks to get to shareholders NJ doesn’t like this and wants to protect NJ shareholders.

True conflicts.

Party Autonomy rule of validation choice-of-law clauses.

Renvoi désistement. complex litigation In re Air Crash Disaster near Chicago (7 th Cir. 1981)

Interest analysis. Schultz v Boy Scouts of America (NY 1985)

Chapter 18.  Criminal Law: crime against the state  Civil Law: person commits a wrong, not always a violation of law  Plaintiff-the harmed individual,

Leflar – choice influencing considerations predictability of results maintenance of interstate and int’l legal orders simplification of judicial task advancement.

Schultz v Boy Scouts of America (NY 1985). “The three reasons most often urged in support of applying the law of the forum-locus in cases such as this.

Corporate Training. What is Insurance? Insurance is the means by which risk is transferred by a person or a business (insured) to an insurer. The insurer.

Insurance Terms Business Essentials. Term Insurance An insurance policy that provides coverage for a limited period, the value payable only if a loss.

Wed. Mar. 19. Dépeçage renvoi désistement Contract in CT, performance in Mass Mass court would use law of place of contracting CT court would use law.

Wed. Apr. 2. Hughes v Fetter (US 1951) Tennessee Coal, Iron & RR Co v George (US 1914)

Renvoi désistement. complex litigation In re Air Crash Disaster near Chicago (7 th Cir. 1981)

True conflicts. New York’s Neumeier Rules Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993) - Cooney (MO) injured in MO by machinery owned by Mueller (MO) - Machinery.

Wed. Feb. 26. interest analysis Ontario guest riding in NYer’s car accident in Ontario Ontario has guest statute NY doesn’t - what if neither NY nor.

Interest analysis. Dym v Gordon (NY 1965) P and D both NY domiciliaries BUT taking courses at U of Colo Collision with another vehicle (from Kansas) in.

Mon. Feb. 10. Virginia cases McMillan v McMillan (Va. 1979)

Wed. Feb. 19. interest analysis false conflicts.

Mon. Mar. 10. interest analysis false conflicts.

Choice-of-law clauses in contracts Choice of law that validates contracts – Could be used even when no choice-of-law provision exists – Could be used to.

McMillan v McMillan (Va. 1979). § 145. The General Principle (1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined.

Auto Insurance Chapter Types Automobile Coverage Automobile Liability Insurance Medical Payments Coverage Physical Damage Coverage Uninsured Motorists.

Thurs. Feb. 11. Holzer Buchanan v. Doe (Va. 1993)

Lect. 2 1/14/2016. Personal jurisdiction Choice of law Recognition of foreign judgments Constitutional Sub-constitutional.

Tues. Jan. 26. property Early draft of 2 nd Restatement: First, land and things attached to the land are within the exclusive control of the state in.

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.

2 nd Restatement. § 146. Personal Injuries In an action for a personal injury, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights.

TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.

Tues. Feb. 16. pleading and proving foreign law Fact approach to content of foreign law.

Tues. Mar. 1. “unprovided-for” cases Grant variation Arizonan and Californian get in accident in Arizona Californian dies Arizonan sues Californian’s.

Thurs. Mar. 24. complex litigation In re Air Crash Disaster near Chicago (7 th Cir. 1981)

Tues. Feb. 23. interest analysis true conflicts.

Torts. Homework: read section titled: The Idea of Liability and The Idea of torts: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow - take notes on reading! Pages

Tues. Mar. 22. Dépeçage Adams (NY domiciliary) is member of NY organization Enrolls in its nature program Truck takes him to Mass Breaks down Farmer.

Thurs. Feb. 25. Schultz v Boy Scouts of America (NY 1985)

Thurs. Feb. 18. Party Autonomy Rest 2d § 188. Law Governing In Absence Of Effective Choice By The Parties (1) The rights and duties of the parties with.

Thurs. Mar. 3. Green’s critique of interest analysis.

Leflar – choice influencing considerations

NJ CAR INSURANCE 1.

Lecture 15 Feb. 28, 2018.

Torts “ Civil Wrongs” Chapter 17

Lecture 13 Feb. 21, 2018.

Lecture 10 Feb. 12, 2018.

Lecture 14 Feb. 26, 2018.

Lecture 14 Oct. 22, 2018.

Lecture 17 Mar. 14, 2018.

Lecture 12 Feb. 19, 2018.

Lecture 12 Oct. 10, 2018.

Lecture 13 Oct. 17, 2018.

Lecture 11 Oct. 8, 2018.

Lecture 17 Oct. 31, 2018.

Lecture 16a Oct. 30, 2018.

Presentation transcript:

Thurs. Mar. 17

New York’s Neumeier Rules

Cooney v Osgood Machinery (NY 1993)

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….

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

P (NY) guest of D (Ontario) host if accident in NY, then P wins accident in Ontario, then D wins

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”

- unprovided for cases - including those in which accident happens in state with same law as plaintiff’s domicile - true conflicts when injury occurs in neither person home state

Guest (Ontario) sues Host (NY) Accident in Ontario Guest (Michigan) sues Host (NY) Accident in Ontario Guest (NY) sues Host (Michigan) Accident in Ontario

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

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

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….”

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