Good question. Conflict of laws "encompasses several related areas of law: choice of law, constitutional limitations on choice of law, jurisdiction of courts, [and] recognition of sister-state judgments..." Brilmayer xxvii.
We're gonna be focused on choice of law, cuz it's the hardest (for me, at least), but to explain some of the others briefly (again, "explain" means "tell y'all what I think it means," not "tell y'all what it means"):
*Jurisdiction of courts: Does a federal court have jurisdiction over a state claim? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over an IL resident? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over a British corporation? (etc.) This obviously is not a definition but rather a listing of examples, but that's cuz a definition is beyond the scope of this blog.
*Recognition of sister-state judgments: Does an IL court have to give "full faith and credit" to a decision that a TX court reached? (Basically, yes.)
Okay, so what is choice of law? Maybe a (not so) hypothetical situation will help elucidate it:
Mr. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama. He works as a brakeman on a railroad. The RR he works for is an Alabama corporation that runs a train from TN through AL into MS. Carroll works on the part of the line between Birmingham, AL, and Meridian, MS. On the train somewhere in MS, a link between two traincars breaks, and Carroll gets hurt. What happened? One of the RR's employees failed to inspect the train links while the train was still in Alabama. (This employee was "negligent," which is typically a cause for action.) Neither AL state law nor MS state law, however, allows Carroll to recover money from his employer (the RR) for negligence on the part of an employee. So, Carroll is out of luck, right? Well, wouldn't you know it, there's a statute in Alabama called the Employer's Liability Act of Alabama, which might allow Carroll to recover some money. MS, however, lacks such a statute.
So, I think you can see where we're going with this. If the court decides to apply MS law, Carroll loses. If the court decides to apply AL law, Carroll has at least a chance of winning. (At this point you may be asking, "well, which court is hearing this case--an AL state court or a MS state court?" Surprisingly, I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is immaterial for our purposes...counter-intuitive, no?)
Okay, this fact pattern actually did happen once upon a time. I took the facts from an 1892 case. The judge in this case applied a "traditional" approach to this issue of choice of law that is now outdated in a majority of states. But still, the prof wanted us to read this case and he knows more about teaching Conflicts than I do, so I'm gonna post it.
Before I get into the holdings of the case, try to decide which law you'd apply (and why). I know that thinking critically sucks when the answer is just around the corner, but, uh, do it anyways.
.
.
.
The judge held that MS law applies. He held that there can be no recovery in one State (AL) for injuries to the person sustained in another State (MS) unless the infliction of the injuries is actionable (that is, if you have grounds to sue on) under the law of the State in which they were received (MS). So, if MS had this Employer's Liability Act, a MS court could award damages to Carroll. Hell, an Alabama court--applying MS law--could award damages to Carroll. (Yes, State 1 can and often does apply State 2's law.) But, our court cannot award damages because it must apply MS law and MS has no law that would allow Carroll to recover damages.
Why does the judge care so much about where the injury occurs? After all, the negligence took place in Alabama. If our boy Carroll had gotten hurt in MS "normally" (i.e., in a manner not caused by negligence), he'd have no right to sue cuz he'd have no action (i.e., no law to sue on). Sure, the injury in MS is a necessary prerequisite of the lawsuit, but so is the negligence in AL!
Here's my best understanding of what the judge was thinking: "Look, a negligent action without an injury isn't Negligence. If I drive my Corvette negligently and almost hit your car parked on the street (you're sitting in your house and are unaware of what happened), you can't sue me because you haven't suffered any damages.* Failing to inspect the train became actionable when Carroll suffered an injury."
The court treats as dispositive (being a deciding factor--comes from the fact that if a court decides this issue, it can dispose of the lawsuit) this question: "Where did the last event necessary to make someone (allegedly) liable for a tort occur?" This is nice because it makes our job easier...you figure out where the last even occurred, look at that state's laws, and apply those laws. The end. But, is that fair?
Later, we'll be talking about choices of law with respect to intentional torts. (Negligence is not an intentional tort.) Btw, a tort is "a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages." (Black's law dictionary.) Should the fact that I meant to hurt you affect our choice of law? Stay tuned!
*I say "parked car" to avoid murky questions of emotional distress, etc. that might arise if I narrowly avoid hitting you while we're both driving. Also: yes, they did have Corvettes in 1892.
No comments:
Post a Comment