Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

1.

The correlation between jurisdiction and choice of law  Lee vs Chamberlin and Precourt vs Driscoll
a. Approaches to choice of law are not applicable because the case at bar is
i. Traditional approaches a delict, in the sense that it was not made
innocent by Maine law
Gray vs Gray (1934) – CJ Peaslee  (1) That the only reason a recovery could not
Plaintiff: Mrs. Gray be had in Maine is the spousal relation of the
Defendant: Mr. Gray parties. As the parties are residents in New
Concept: the correlation between jurisdiction and choice of law Hampshire, where spousal incapacity to sue
– approaches – traditional approach has been abolished, it is argued that the
wife’s complaint for acts done in Maine may
Brief Facts: The case is to recover damages for personal be brought into New Hampshire and suit
injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant upon it maintained therein
husband’s negligence. The parties are husband and wife, and
are both residents of New Hapshire. The accident happened in ISSUES: WON there is cause of action (No. No right was
Maine. The defendant husband argued that under the laws of violated)
Maine, the wife cannot maintin an action against the husband.
The SC held that the laws of Maine shall be applied. Hence, RATIO:
the acts complained of do not give rise to any cause of action  Theory of law followed by the state (New Hampshire)
as there has been no breach of legal duty. for hundreds of years: If there is a conflict between
the lex loci (where transaction/act performed) and the
Doctrine: When a right is claimed upon acts occurring in lex fori (where action brought), the former governs in
another country, courts look to the law of that country not to torts the same as in contracts, in respect to the legal
extend the binding force of a foreign law beyond the territorial effect and incidents of acts
limits of the sovereignty to which it belongs, but to ascertain o As applied in the case at bar: whatever
whether the right claimed exists or not. It is not the foreign law, would be a defense to this action if it had
but the rights acquired under it, which are enforced by the been brought in the State of Maine is a
courts of another country. And this is true whether the question defense here, although it would not be, if
be one of contract, tort, or status. (theory of vested right or the cause of action had arisen in this state
obligatio)  On argument (1)
o The argument fails to distinguish between
FACTS: status and the incidents which local law
 The parties are husband and wife, and are both attaches to the status
residents of New Hapshire. o The parties are husband and wife. That
 They got into an accident in Maine. The wife filed a status they took with them into Maine. But
case against her husband to recover damages for the incidents of that status are those
personal injuries. The case was filed in a New prescribed by the law of the place where
Hampshire court. transactions take place – a rule that has been
 The defendant husband argued that under the laws of frequently been applied in tort actions where
Maine, the wife cannot maintain an action against the other relations were involved
husband. o The defendant’s act is a delict by the lex loci.
 Conflict of laws: It would have been actionable if committed
o Accident happened in Maine where spouses here (New Hampshire); and, as to persons in
cannot sue each other general, it is actionable there (Maine). But
o Case was brought before a court in New because of the particular relation of the
Hampshire where the spouses are residents and parties, the law there is that there is no caise
where there is no spousal prohibition of action in the special instance. The plaintiff
 Arguments were then presented placing at issue what fails here, as those plaintiffs failed, because
law should be applied, and further criticized the there is no cause of action at the place where
traditional approach the acts complained of were done.
o Criticisms on the traditional approach o On the suggestion that recovery may be had
 Contrary to the English law by resort to a jurisdiction where such suits
 Unsound in principle (between husband and wife) are allowed –
 Unworkable in many situations this is upon the theory that whole or none of
 (2) It is inconsistent to enforce foreign rights the lex loci should be applied
and at the same time declare that the  In effect, the suggestion is the
foreign law is not in force (here) application of the doctrine of renvoi
o Arguments on why there is cause of action should be treated the same as the
rest of the lex loci

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |1


 Renvoi – the rule in some further application is futile and ridiculous, the process
jurisdictions that in a suit by a is cut short.
nonresident upon a cause arising  As the law progresses definite rules are evolved in the
locally his capacity to sue will be course of the frequent application of those tests. That
determined by looking to the law is the situation here. It has become settled that
of his domicile rather than to the reason, justice, and expediency require that causes of
local law action for foreign torts be dealt with as hereinbefore
 SC: The theory adopted in Maine is indicated.
not merely that there is a prohibition
of suit, but the acts complained of do
not give rise to any cause of action. Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. v. Carrol
There has been no breach of legal Plaintiff: W.D. Carroll
duty. Defendant: Alabama Great Southern R.R.
 SC: Application of the renvoi doctrine Topic: The correlation between jurisdiction and choice of law;
is a matter to be decided when a case approaches to choice of law; traditional approaches
arises which presents that question. In Foreign Elements:
the instant case there is no occasion to (1) Injury took place in Mississippi while the action was
go further that to inquire whether the brought in Alabama
obstacle proposed is insuperable. If It (2) Plaintiff, Carroll is a citizen of Alabama while
does not appear to be son, we need to defendant Alabama Great is an Alabama corporation
be apprehensive that adherence to the
present line of procedure will unduly Brief Facts: A citizen of Alabama was injured while on duty as a
embarrass the court of the future when brakeman of Alabama Great Southern, an Alabama
called upon to decide the corporation. The negligence which caused the injury transpired
propounded problem. in Alabama, but the injury was suffered in Mississippi. The
 On argument (2) employee now sues for damages against the defendant
o The local law is that the foreign rights will be corporation under Section 2590 of the Alabama Code, which
enforced. What those rights are depends upon affords a cause of action against employers for injuries
the facts, and a part of the facts consists in the sustained from the negligence of its employees.
law under which the transactions took place.
o Foreign laws are enforced because it is the local Doctrine: There can be no recovery in one state for injuries to
law that the foreign law shall govern the the person sustained in another, unless the infliction of the
transactions in question. This is not importing injuries is actionable under the law of the state in which they
foreign law. It is only giving to it the legitimate were received. Even if the provisions of the Alabama statute
effect upon transactions occurring where it is in being invoked formed part of the contract under which the
force. The logical alternative is not found in the plaintiff claims damages, these liabilities can only be invoked
application of local law to a foreign transaction, within Alabama and not outside its jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
but in the refusal to deal with that transaction at no cause of action can arise in Alabama, as the injury was
all. sustained in Mississippi.
 On the criticisms
o English law has never attained any recognition in FACTS:
the US. “No case in this country has been found 1. W.D. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama. Alabama Great
where recovery in tort has been allowed for what Southern is an Alabama corporation operating a railroad
was not the basis of an action by the lex loci extending from Chattanooga in the State of Tennessee
delicti.” through Alabama to Meridian in the State Mississippi.
o No one denies that the parties may have vested 2. Carroll was in the service of Alabama Great as a brakeman
rights, or obligations, in the jurisdiction where the on freight trains running from Birmingham, Alabama, to
transaction occurred. But because another Meridian, Mississippi, under a contract which was made in
sovereignty adopts the rule that it will enforce the the state of Alabama
right or deny recovery as the event would be 3. While Carroll was on the job, he suffered an injury which
according to the lex loci, it by no means follows was caused by the breaking of a link between two cars in a
that it is the law of the forum that such course is freight train which was proceeding from Birmingham to
obligatory upon such sovereignty. Meridian. The point at which the link broke and the injury
 Once the doctrine of obligation is disregarded, and was suffered was in the State of Mississippi.
recognition of the lex loci is put upon its true 4. Carroll filed an action in the courts of Alabama against
foundation, there is no difficulty. The lex loci is Alabama Great for the injury caused by the negligence of
applied because this is deemed to be the sensible its employees
course to pursue. When a point is reached where

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |2


- The evidence tended to show that the link which such thing; it is made to appear from the decisions of
broke was a defective link and that it was in a the Supreme Court of Mississippi which were
defective condition when the train left Birmingham introduced on the trial below that that court is in full
- This link came with a foreign car which was attached accord with this one in this respect.
to Alabama Great’s train at Chattanooga, Tennessee. 2. NO. There can be no recovery in one state for injuries to
The foreign car was bound for Meridian the person sustained in another, unless the infliction of the
- At Birmingham, the car between this foreign car and injuries is actionable under the law of the state in which
the Alabama Great car was cut out, and these two they were received—Mississippi
were coupled together by means of the link - Carroll: Section 2590 of the Alabama Code1 authorizes
- The defect in the link was shown to have resulted the courts of Alabama to subject Alabama Great to
from its having been bent while cold—this tended to the payment of damages, although the injuries
weaken the iron and in this instance had cracked the counted on were sustained in Mississippi under
link circumstances which involved no liability on Alabama
- It was shown to be the duty of certain employees of Great by the laws of Mississippi. This contention is
Alabama Great stationed along its line to inspect the based on that aspect of the evidence which goes to
links attached to cars to be put in trains or forming show that the negligence which produced the
the couplings between cars in trains at Chattanooga, casualty transpired in Alabama, and the theory that
Birmingham and some points between Birmingham wherever the consequence of that negligence
and the place where this link broke. It was the duty of manifested itself, a recovery can be had in Alabama
the conductor of freight trains and the other train men - Court:
to maintain such inspection as occasion afforded o There can be no recovery in one state for injuries
throughout the runs or trips of such trains to the person sustained in another, unless the
- The evidence affords ground for inference that there infliction of the injuries is actionable under the
was a negligent omission on the part of such law of the state in which they were received (in
employees to perform this duty, or if performed, the this case, Mississippi)
failure to discover the defect in and to remove this o This rule is not varied because the negligence
link was the result of negligence which produced the casualty transpired in
Alabama, where the common-law liability of the
ISSUE: master is modified, nor by the facts that both
1. WON Alabama Great may be held liable under common- master and employee reside in this state and
law for the injury caused by the negligence of its services were required of the employee in both
employees, where the injury was suffered in Mississippi states
(NO) o Up to the time train passed out of Alabama, no
2. WON Alabama Great may be held liable under Section injury had resulted. For all that occurred in
2590 of the Alabama Code (Employer’s Liability Act) (NO) Alabama, no cause of action ever arose.
3. WON Carroll may impute liability to Alabama Great by o The face which created the right to sue, the
virtue of the provisions of Employer’s Liability Act of injury, without which no cause of action would lie
Alabama (NO) anywhere, transpired in Mississippi. It is in that
state that the cause of action, if any, arose; and
RATIO: whether a cause of action obtained at the time
1. NO. Common law in both Alabama and Mississippi affords and place when and where the injury transpired.
Carroll no cause of action against Alabama Great Section 2590 had no efficiency beyond the lines of
- As shown by the evidence presented, the only Alabama. It cannot be allowed to operate upon
negligence is that of persons whose duty it was to facts occurring in another state so as to evolve out
inspect the links of the train and remove such as were of them rights and liabilities which do not exist
defective and replace them with others which were under the law of that state
not defective. This was the negligence not of the 3. NO. The obligations imposed by Section 2950, if it did in
master, Alabama Great, but the fellow-servants of the fact form part of the contract, can only operate within the
plaintiff. jurisdiction of Alabama.
- Under the common-law in Alabama, the master is not - Carroll: At the time he was injured, he was in the
liable for an injury inflicted through the negligence of discharge of duties which rested on him by the terms
a fellow-servant. of a contract between him and Alabama Great which
- This being the common-law applicable to the had been entered into in Alabama and hence, was an
premises as understood and declared in Alabama, it
will be presumed in our courts as thus declared to be
the common-law of Mississippi, unless the evidence 1
Affords a cause of action against the master “when the injury is
shows a different rule to have been announced in that caused by reason of the negligence of any person in the service or
jurisdiction. The evidence presented fails to show any employment of the master or employer, who has any superintendence
entrusted to him, whilst in the exercise of such superintendence”
B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |3
Alabama contract. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama and Digest by: Fra
the defendant is an Alabama corporation. The
provisions of the Employer’s Liability Act became a
part of his contract—the duties and liabilities which it ii. Modern approaches
prescribes became contractual obligations and these
duties attended upon the execution whenever its
performance was required, in Mississippi as well as in Auten v Auten (1922) – Fuld, J.
Alabama, and that the liability prescribed for a failure Plaintiff: Margarite Auten
to perform any of such duties attached upon such Defendant: Harold Auten
failure and consequent injury where it occurred and Concept: Modern approaches
was enforceable here because imposed by an
Alabama contract, notwithstanding the remission of Brief facts: Margarite Auten sues Harold Auten in New York to
duty and the resulting injury occurred in Mississippi, recover support for her and her children that Harold owed by
under whose laws no liability was incurred by such virtue of a separation agreement. The Autens were married in
remission England. Harold deserted her, went to America, obtained a
- Court: Mexican divorce, then married another woman. Margarite went
o If the defendant is under a contractual obligation to New York, where she and Harold came to a separation
to pay Carroll the damages sustained by him agreement which provided that Harold was to pay to a trustee,
because of the injury inflicted in Mississippi, the for Margarite’s account, 50 pounds sterling (British currency) a
contract could be enforced in Mississippi and month for her support and that of their 2 children. The
damages may be awarded by their courts, agreement also provided that they were not to sue each other
notwithstanding the law of that state provides in any action relating to their separation, and Margarite would
that there can be no recover under any not cause any complaint against Harold in any jurisdiction
circumstances whatever by one servant for the because of his alleged divorce and remarriage. Harold made a
negligence of his fellow employee—this is an few payments only, so Margarite filed a petition for separation
infirm proposition in England, charging Harold with adultery. Harold was served
o The liability of the employer under Section 2590 in New York with process in that suit and he was ordered to
does not spring from the contract of pay alimony pendent lite. This English case never proceeded
employment, the only office of which is to to trial. Margarite instituted the instant suit to recover support
establish the relation of master and servant, and due under the agreement.
it is alone upon the incidents of that relation that
the statute operates. Hence, a servant injured in Doctrine: Center of Gravity/Grouping of Contacts Theory: The
another state by the negligence of a fellow- courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the parties’ intention
servant, under such circumstances as would or the place of making or performance, lay emphasis rather
create no right of action against the master in upon the law of the place which has the most significant
that state, cannot recover against the latter in contacts with the matter in dispute.
Alabama, although the contract was entered into
and the services partly performed here FACTS:
 Duties and liabilities are established at the 1. 1917: Harold and Margarite Auten were married in England,
place of the contract and are determinable living there with their 2 children until 1931.
by the law of that place, but when parties to 2. 1931: According to Margarite, Harold deserted her, came to
into other jurisdictions, the relation created America, obtained a Mexican divorce, then married another
by the contract under the laws of the place woman.
of its execution will be recognized, but the 3. 1933: They came to a separation agreement, which provided
consequences and legality of an act or that:
omission committed in a different o Harold was to pay to a trustee, for the account of
jurisdiction is solely governed by the law of Margarite, £50 (50 pounds sterling) a month for the
that place, and not the law of the execution support of Margarite and her 2 children.
of the contract o They were to live separate and apart.
 Each sovereignty has the exclusive power to o They were not to sue each other in any action relating to
finally determine and declare what acts or their separation.
omission in the conduct of one to another o Margarite would not cause any complaint to be lodged
shall impose a liability in damages for the against Harold in any jurisdiction because of the alleged
consequent injury, and the courts of no other divorce or remarriage.
sovereignty could impute a damnifying 4. Harold made a few payments only, leaving Margarite and
quality to an act or omission which afforded her children destitute.
no cause of action where it transpired. 5. August 1934: Margarite filed a petition for separation in an
English court, charging Harold with adultery

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |4


6. December 4, 1936: Harold was served in New York with  Harold abandoned his family and was in the US on a
process in that suit. temporary visa.
7. July 1938: Harold was ordered to pay alimony pendente lite.  Margarite’s sole purpose was to get Harold to agree to
8. This English case never proceeded to trial. support their family.
9. 1947: Margarite brought the instant suit to recover $26,564  The money was to be paid to a trustee in New York but
representing support due under the agreement, from those who stood to benefit live in England.
January 1, 1935 to September 1, 1947.  The agreement refers to British currency (pounds
sterling.)
CFI dismissed the complaint. o New York’s only connection to the case is where the
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision agreement was made , and where the trustee to whom the
money was to be paid held office.
ISSUES: o It is unlikely that Margarite intended to subject herself to
Which law applied as to the issue of whether Margarite’s the law of another state which she was not familiar with.
commencement of the English case (petition for separation  English law must be applied.
with charge of adultery) constituted a rescission and o It is for the courts of that state to determine whether
repudiation of the separation agreement? English Margarite’s institution of a case constituted a breach of
their agreement.
RATIO: o The Court noted that based on English law, there was no
Based on the “center of gravity” or “grouping of contacts” breach of the agreement by Margarite.
theory of the conflict of laws, English law governs.
The decisions in New York jurisprudence as to which law DISPOSITIVE: The judgment of the Appellate Division and
applies to contracts with elements in different jurisdictions that of Special Term insofar as they dismiss the complaint
show several approaches. should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the matter
o Most of the cases rely on these general rules, which were remitted for further proceedings in accordance with this
thought to be conclusive: opinion.
 "All matters bearing upon the execution, the
interpretation and the validity of contracts are
determined by the law of the place where the contract is Haag v. Barnes (1960) - Stevens
made" Appellant: Dorothy Haag a.k.a. Dorothy Hawthorne
 "All matters connected with performance are regulated Respondent: Norman Barnes
by the law of the place where the contract, by its terms, Topic: Approaches to choice of law; Modern approaches
is to be performed." Foreign Elements:
 What constitutes a breach of the contract and what (1) Respondent Barnes is from Illinois
circumstances excuse a breach are considered matters (2) Child was born in Illinois
of performance, governable, within this rule, by the law (3) Parites entered an agreement for support in Illinois
of the place of performance. (4) It was stipulated that the agreement be governed by laws
o However, recent decisions have innovated by employing a of Illinois
method that rationalizes the choice of law. This method has (5) Haag appears to have lived in California
been called the “center of gravity” or “grouping of
contracts” theory. Brief facts: Haag (mother) and Barnes (father) had a relationship
 “The courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the which resulted to them having a child out of wedlock. Both
parties’ intention or the place of making or performance, entered into an agreement for support made in Illinois with a
lay emphasis rather upon the law of the place which has stipulation that such agreement should be governed by the
the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute.” laws of Illinois. The agreement did not acknowledge paternity.
 This method may seem less predictable but it gives to Haag instituted a paternity proceeding against Barnes in New
the jurisdiction having the most interest in the problem, York. Barnes sought for its dismissal alleging that a binding
control over the legal issues arising from a specific set of agreement governed by the laws of Illinois was already
circumstances, allowing the forum to apply the rules of executed between them and that he has substantially
the jurisdiction most intimately connected with the complied with the agreement.
outcome of the particular case.
 This has been thought to effect the probable intention Doctrine: The validity of a contract is determined by the law of
of the parties when making their contract. the jurisdiction where made, and if legal there is generally
In the instant case: enforcible anywhere. There is, however, a well-established
o England has the most significant contacts with the case. exception to the rule to the effect that a court will not enforce
 The agreement was between British subjects. a contract though valid where made if its enforcement is
 They were married in England. contrary to the policy of the forum.
 They lived there as a family for 14 years.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |5


FACTS: adequate provision has been made and is fully secured and
1. Haag (resident of New York) met Barnes (resident of Illinois) shall have approved said agreement or compromise."
in 1954. At that time Haag was employed as a law secretary. - The Illinois statute at the time of the agreement read as
2. The relationship ripened and Haag alleges, from and as a follows: "§ 18 Release of reputed father by mother of child.
result of the association a child was born to her in Illinois (1955) The mother of a bastard child, before or after its birth, may
3. January 12, 1956: Haag and Barnes entered into an release the reputed father of such child from all legal liability
agreement in Illinois by which Barnes undertook to pay the on account of such bastardy, upon such terms as may be
sum of $275 per month for the support of Haag and the infant. consented to in writing by the judge of the court having
a) The agreement provided that it should "in all jurisdiction herein of the county in which such mother resides:
respects be interpreted, construed and governed by Provided, a release obtained from such mother in
the laws of the State of Illinois" consideration of a payment to her of a sum of money less than
b) contained a provision that Haag should reside in eight hundred dollars in the absence of the written consent of
Illinois for two years thereafter unless she obtained the judge of the court having jurisdiction herein, shall not be a
the written consent of Barnes to live elsewhere. bar to a suit for bastardy against such father, but if, after such
c) The agreement, which did not acknowledge release is obtained, suit be instituted against such father and
paternity, was valid under the then laws of Illinois the issue be found against him, he shall be entitled to a set-off
4. A paternity proceeding was instituted pursuant to section 64 for the amount so paid, and it shall be accredited to him as of
of the New York City Criminal Courts Act. the first payment or payments: And, provided, further, that
5. Barnes has paid substantially more than the sums called for such father may compromise all his legal liability on account of
by the agreement. such bastard child, with the mother thereof, without the written
6. Appears that Haag, for a period prior to the birth and for consent of such judge, by paying to her any sum not less than
two years thereafter lived in California. eight hundred dollars."
7. Barnes sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to section - The agreement recites that the defendant had advanced
63 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act and section 121 of in excess of $2,000 to complainant prior to its execution,
the Domestic Relations Law contending: agreed to and did pay $800 counsel fees, and the amount of
a) a binding agreement had been entered providing support agreed upon was not predicated upon the minimal
for generous support of the child provided by the statute, and such payments are to be
b) Barnes had fully performed and even provided continued until the infant reaches the age of 16 years. The
additional support. sums paid were in excess of that provided for by the
8. Complaint was dismissed. agreement and cannot be said to be inadequate.
9. On appeal (Haag): - Under such conditions it is the agreement and not the
a) the laws of New York do not bar the proceeding but statute which should govern. If no policy of the forum is
impose obligations on the defendant offended, comity and good morals should require recognition
b) that the Illinois statute does not bar the proceeding of the agreement, as well as the requirement that full faith and
because it expresses a policy different from and credit be accorded the statute, a public act, and agreements
contrary to the laws of New York executed thereunder.
c) that the most significant contacts are in New York - The failure to obtain the written consent of a judge may
10. Barnes: the agreement is governed by the laws of Illinois, be considered as a mere formality insufficient to render the law
was valid there, is not contrary to the public policy of New inapplicable or to invalidate the agreement.
York, and should control. - The object of the Illinois statute and of our public policy,
as expressed by statute where a natural child is involved, is to
ISSUE: WON the agreement is governed by Illinois law (YES) provide for the support and welfare of such child, and to
assure that the child will not become a public charge. The
RATIO: support obligation of a father of a child born out of wedlock is
- GR: the validity of a contract is determined by the law of purely by virtue of statute, and when, by agreement and
the jurisdiction where made, and if legal there is generally performance thereunder, adequate support is assured, no
enforcible anywhere. There is, however, a well-established public policy of the State is offended.
exception to the rule to the effect that a court will not enforce - Auten case not applicable: The parties there were
a contract though valid where made if its enforcement is residents of England. The agreement was executed in New
contrary to the policy of the forum. York for convenience, but at the time of execution the parties
- The policy of the forum (New York) is not offended by the realized, recognized and contemplated that the payments
mere fact that the parties entered into an agreement. would necessarily be expended in England. The "most
- Section 63 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act significant contacts with the matter in dispute was England."
recognizes that the parties may agree or compromise for - In this case both parties were represented by counsel and
support of either the mother or the child. It places a restriction the agreement expressly provides that it shall "in all respects
upon the effect of such agreement by providing that it shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of the
not be binding until the court "shall have determined that State of Illinois." Haag was not so unfamiliar with legal process
as is the average layman for she had worked as a law secretary.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |6


Moreover, it was shown that she resided in California hence - There should not have been a summary dismissal of the
the most significant contacts were not New York nor does it proceeding. It should be remitted to the Court of Special
have the "most interest in the problem" to the exclusion of or Sessions for a hearing and proper findings as to complainant's
paramount to the interests of Illinois. residence at the time of executing the agreement and during
- In this case there is capacity, mutual assent, designation the ensuing years to the commencement of this proceeding.
of the State whose law shall govern, a grouping of the Thereupon, a disposition might be made of the motion to
elements which indicate that up to the institution of this dismiss giving full consideration to the rights of the parties and
proceeding the more significant contacts had been Illinois, and the public policy of this State.
no provision so offensive to our public policy as to warrant our
rejection of the agreement. Babcock v Jackson (1963) – Fuld, J
Petitioner: Georgia Babcock (plaintiff)
DISPOSITIVE: Order appealed from affirmed. Respondents: William Jackson (defendant)
Concept:
BASTOW, J. (dissenting). Digest by: Joyce Gamonnac
- It is conceded that the agreement was never approved by
any court of competent jurisdiction. Doctrine: The traditional rule was to give controlling effect to
- The motion to dismiss was granted in an opinion of two the statute of the foreign jurisdiction in which the accident
sentences stating that the agreement was a bar to the present occurred. However, reconsideration of the inflexible traditional
action. This conclusion was reached by virtue of the provisions rule is necessary since in failing to take into account essential
of section 63 of the New York City Criminal Courts Act, section policy considerations and objectives, its application may lead
121 of the Domestic Relations Law and the pertinent Illinois to unjust and anomalous results.
statute. The latter statute stated in substance that court
approval of such a compromise was not required if the FACTS:
agreement provided for the payment to the mother of any sum 1. Georgia Babcock and her friends, Mr. and Mrs.
not less than $800. All of this was repealed in 1957 and the William Jackson, are all residents of Rochester NY.
foreign State now operates under a statute more similar to They left the city in Mr. Jackson’s car for a weekend
ours. trip in Canada.
- If it could be found as a fact that complainant was at all 2. While they were travelling in Ontario, Mr. Jackson lost
times from December, 1955 to the present a resident of this control of the car and Babcock was badly injured.
State we would have presented the issue as to whether the 3. Upon her return to NY, Babcock filed a suit against
agreement could bar the present proceeding, since it is Jackson.
contrary to the public policy of this State. Such public policy of 4. At the time of the accident, Ontario had a statute that
this State in this area of the law has been recently stated. If renders a driver/owner of a vehicle not liable for loss
such residence was established the fact that the agreement or damage resulting from bodily injury to a person
provides that it shall be governed by the laws of Illinois would being carried in that vehicle unless it is operated in
not necessarily prevent the courts of this State from exploring the business of carrying passengers for compensation
its validity inasmuch as the agreement has not been judicially (GUEST STATUTE). NY does not have this kind of
approved. statute.
- It has recently been stated that "The validity of a contract 5. Jackson moved to dismiss the complaint on the
is determined by the local law of the state chosen by the ground that the law of the place of the accident
parties for this purpose unless * * * (c) application of the governs and the Ontario guest statute bars recovery.
chosen law would be contrary to a fundamental policy of the 6. The lower court agreed with Jackson and granted the
state which would be the state of the governing law in the MTD. The Appellate Division, over a strong dissent by
absence of an effective choice by the parties." Justice Halpern, affirmed the judgment of dismissal
- Here there was sufficient contact with this State by the without opinion
contracting parties to at least require further exploration of the
facts. It must be conceded that the present record is ISSUE: WON the law of the place of the tort invariably govern
inadequate to make a determination. It is not clear from the the availability of relief for the tort or shall the applicable
affidavits before us as to the exact residence of the choice of law rule also reflect a consideration of other factors
complainant during the years from 1955 to the present. which are relevant to the purposes served by the enforcement
- She claims residence in this State from 1947 to the or denial of the remedy?
present "except for a residence in California as will be shown"
in the affidavit. The ensuing statements as to residence in RATIO:
California are vague and indefinite. She was there from some NY Law should govern. Other factors were considered such as
indefinite period before the birth of the child. After the the policy behind the law. The court rejected a traditional fixed
agreement was executed she received permission from method of determining which law should apply, and instead, a
defendant — in conformity with the agreement — to go to process of weighing factors such as relationship between the
California where she lived for approximately two years. party, decision to take the trip, and connections to the locality.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |7


Thus, the Court held that the parties did not have substantial 4. In many other cases where NY courts declined to apply
connection with Ontario and so it would be unfair to apply the the law of the place where the tort happened, the
law as the location was largely fortuitous. The Court found that similarities are:
the jurisdiction with the most connections was New York and so a) First, by one rationale or another, they rejected the
New York law should apply. inexorable application of the law of the place of the
1. The traditional choice of law rule has been that the tort where that place has no reasonable or relevant
substantive rights and liabilities arising out of a tortious interest in the particular issue involved.
occurrence are determinable by the law of the place of the b) Second, in each of these cases the courts, after
tort. It had its conceptual foundation in the vested rights examining the particular circumstances presented,
doctrine, namely, that a right to recover for a foreign tort applied the law of some jurisdiction other than the
owes its creation to the law of the jurisdiction where the place of the tort because it had a more compelling
injury occurred and depends for its existence and extent interest in the application of its law to the legal issue
solely on such law. involved.
a) However, the vested rights doctrine has long since 5. IN THIS CASE: The Court compared the relative “contacts”
been discredited because it fails to take account of and “interests” of NY and Ontario. The present action
underlying policy considerations in evaluating the involves injuries sustained by a New York guest as the result
significance to be ascribed to the circumstance that of the negligence of a New York host in the operation of an
an act had a foreign situs in determining the rights automobile, garaged, licensed and undoubtedly insured in
and liabilities which arise out of that act. New York, in the course of a week-end journey which
b) The vice of the vested rights theory, is that it affects to began and was to end there. In sharp contrast, Ontario's
decide concrete cases upon generalities which do not sole relationship with the occurrence is the purely
state the practical considerations involved. More adventitious circumstance that the accident occurred there.
particularly, as applied to torts, the theory ignores the 6. NY’s policy of requiring a tort-feasor to compensate his
interest which jurisdictions other than that where the guest for injuries caused by his negligence cannot be
tort occurred may have in the resolution of particular doubted – as attested by the fact that the Legislature of
issues. NY has repeatedly refused to enact a statute denying or
2. According to those traditional rules, matters bearing upon limiting recovery in such cases. Hence the courts have
the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract neither reason to depart from that policy simply because
were determinable by the internal law of the place where the accident, solely affecting NY residents and arising out
the contract was made, while matters connected with their of the operation of a NY based automobile, happened
performance were regulated by the internal law of the beyond its borders.
place where the contract was to be performed 7. Ontario, on the other hand, has no conceivable interest in
3. In Auten v Auten, the court abandoned traditional rules denying a remedy to a NY guest against his NY host for
and applied the “CENTER OF GRAVITY” or “GROUPING injuries suffered in Ontario by reason of conduct, which
OF CONTACTS” theory was tortious under Ontario Law.
a) Under such theory, the courts, instead of regarding as o The object of ONTARIO’s GUEST STATUTE is “to
conclusive the parties' intention or the place of prevent the fraudulent assertion of claims by
making or performance, lay emphasis rather upon the passengers, in collusion with the drivers, against
law of the place 'which has the most significant insurance companies”
contacts with the matter in dispute a) This means that the fraudulent claims intended to be
b) Justice, fairness and "the best practical result" may prevented by this statute are those asserted against
best be achieved by giving controlling effect to the Ontario defendants and their insurance carriers.
law of the jurisdiction which, because of its b) Thus the fact that the NY insurers will be defrauded
relationship or contact with the occurrence or the by the NY plaintiff is scarcely a valid concern of
parties, has the greatest concern with the specific Ontario simply because the accident occurred there
issue raised in the litigation. The merit of such a rule is 8. Ontario’s interest is quite different from what it would
that "it gives to the place 'having the most interest in have been if the issue is related to the manner in which
the problem' paramount control over the legal issues the defendant had been driving his car at the time of the
arising out of a particular factual context" and thereby accident. Where the defendant’s exercise of due care in
allows the forum to apply "the policy of the the operation of his automobile is in issue, the jurisdiction
jurisdiction 'most intimately concerned with the in which the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred will have
outcome of [the] particular litigation.' a predominant, if not exclusive concern. In that case, it is
c) The local law of the state which has the most appropriate to look to the law of the place of the tort so as
significant relationship with the occurrence and with to give effect to that jurisdiction’s interest in regulating
the parties determines their rights and liabilities in conduct within its borders, and it would be almost
tort" (Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, § 379[1] unthinkable to seek the applicable rule in the law of some
other place.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |8


9. However, the issue here is NOT whether the defendant 4. This is no substitute for uniform State laws or for obtaining
offended against a rule of the road prescribed by Ontario uniformity by covering the subject by Federal law.
for motorists generally or whether he violated some Undoubtedly ease of travel and communication, and the
standard of conduct imposed by that jurisdiction, but increase in interstate business have rendered more
rather whether the plaintiff, because she was a guest in the awkward discrepancies between the laws of the States in
defendant’s automobile, is barred from recovering many respects. But this is not a condition to be cured by
damages for a wrong concededly committed. introducing or extending principles of extraterritoriality, as
a) Since this is the primary issue, it is NY, the place though we were living in the days of the Roman or British
where the parties resided, where the guest-host Empire, when the concepts were formed that the rights of
relationship arose and where the trip began and was a Roman or an Englishman were so significant that they
to end, rather than Ontario, the place of the fortuitous must be enforced throughout the world even where they
occurrence of the accident, which has the dominant were otherwise unlikely to be honored by "lesser breeds
contacts and the superior claim for application of its without the law."
law. 5. Importing the principles of extraterritoriality into the
b) Although the rightness or wrongness of defendant’s conflicts of laws between the States of the United States
conduct may depend upon the law of the particular can only make confusion worse confounded.
jurisdiction through which the automobile passes, the 6. In the majority opinion it is said that "Where the
rights and liabilities of the parties which stem from defendant's exercise of due care in the operation of his
their guest-host relationship should remain constant automobile is in issue, the jurisdiction in which the
and not vary and shift as the automobile proceeds allegedly wrongful conduct occurred will usually have a
from place to place. predominant, if not exclusive, concern." This is hardly
10. In conclusion, there is no reason why all issues arising out consistent with the statement in the footnote that gross
of a tort claim must be resolved in reference of the law of negligence would not need to be established in an action
the same jurisdiction. Where the issue involves standards by a passenger if the accident occurred in a State whose
of conduct, it is more likely that it is the law of the place of statute so required.
the tort which will be controlling but the disposition of 7. If the status of the passenger as a New Yorker would
other issues must turn, as does the issue of the standard of prevent the operation of a statute in a sister State or
conduct itself, on the law of the jurisdiction which has the neighboring country which granted immunity to the driver
strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue in suits by passengers, it is said that it would also prevent
presented. the operation of a statute which instead of granting
DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from is reversed. immunity permits recovery only in case of gross
negligence.
VAN VOORHIS, J. (Dissenting). 8. There are passenger statutes or common-law decisions
requiring gross negligence or its substantial equivalent to
1. The decision in Auten v. Auten rationalized and rendered be shown in 29 States. One wonders what would happen if
more workable the existing law of contracts. The name contributory negligence were eliminated as a defense by
"grouping of contacts" was simply a label to identify the statute in another jurisdiction? Or if comparative
rationalization of existing decisions on the conflict of laws negligence were established as the rule in the other State?
in contract cases which were technically inconsistent, in 9. In my view there is no overriding consideration of public
some instances. policy which justifies or directs this change in the
2. The difference between the present case and Auten v. established rule or renders necessary or advisable the
Auten is that Auten did not materially change the law, but confusion which such a change will introduce.
sought to formulate what had previously been decided. 10. The judgment dismissing the complaint should be
The present case makes substantial changes in the law of affirmed.
torts. The expressions "center of gravity", "grouping of
contacts," and "significant contacts" are catchwords which
were not employed to define and are inadequate to
define a principle of law, and were neither applied to nor
are they applicable in the realm of torts.
3. Any idea is without foundation that cases such as the
present render more uniform the laws of torts in the
several States of the United States. Attempts to make the
law or public policy of New York State prevail over the
laws and policies of other States where citizens of New
York State are concerned are simply a form of
extraterritoriality which can be turned against us wherever
actions are brought in the courts of New York which
involve citizens of other States.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 4 | Prof. Nicky Ty |9

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen