restatement of conflicts under this test new york has the most significant relationship to mr burdette's coins and therefore the new york law what do you do with a hive case i'm sorry what do you do with this court's two have any just by the expectation that they would be protected by a texas judge who posed for a rifle that is on manufactured in new york there is no connection between the design and manufacturing of the model seven hundred rifles in texas  and the significance of issue in this court action once again to the plaintiffs in defendants is the design meaning fracture in place in the street corners that's that's the significance of this case and all of those actions all of that assuming that hyde weren't on the books that there's nothing in the texas statute that refers to a federal court well that's an interesting point your honor because we think that it is the texas legislature was passing legislation for the purpose of preventing or when a federal court says exercising diversity jurisdiction it is required to rule just as a state or just said if you're going to bring a cause of action in this state for an injury that was caused by congress in another state you must comply with as choice while you have no choice but to apply the rule that's imposed by the texas legislature there who are for the legislature to be talked about federal district courts would make no sense in the earlier version of the statute to actually of law or texas choice of law directs us to a statute the statute says texas and that would also you would win and then you also have an argument i believe that lex loci to deliver to or whatever that that under even there's really no discussion to be had after that point is new to the district or nor respect with this panel really has anything they can do it has to be applied the way the legislature passed it and the one the highest court let me jump forward to oh i thought it was interesting that it worked at argued that this is really an open chords statute well first of all it doesn't really make any difference because statute can obviously have more than one  but if you look back at owens corning the texas supreme court case and if you look at hyde both of the plaintiffs in those cases argued the opposite they argued that this violated  both of my kids for lawyers in when they were growing up i use to tell them one thing about the law is when you're stuck in you can't figure out what it ought to be the law usually makes sense the law make common sense so i'm going to ask the panel to step back and take a commonsense look at what we're really looking at here in terms of most significant relationship or debt or use that the most significant relationship is new york so what w for that is a texas resident according to his own when he checked the rifle exclusively in texas for seventeen years he hunted with it exclusively in texas for seventeen years the accident happened in texas the only witness was in texas at the time of the accident it was a texas game warden and the medical treatment after the accident took place in texas so there are a lot of contacts with texas and pleading including her that they put in texas law directly but there's another state involved here remember georgians involved here too it's interesting that her dad is arguing for new york because there's no statute of repose there but let's look at common sense makes a ask what we really look at what's this really all about you know there is one other way that her dad has put georgia law into play he's alleged a failure to  that's what the law is really a battle is to lay down good common sense rules that can be applied over you know and if we look at this even if we ever got to the most significant relationship yes which i don't think we do to be pursued only if he actually has begun within the time provided by the top texas law and the laws of the foreign state or your country as as rimington will argue what you know even where the principal place of business is in north carolina neither of those three states have statutes or propose so all of the places defendant has failed themselves do not have the protections of  the which is the place of the injury determines the choice of law now but it's a factor under the big statement absolutely it is a factor and we will argue once again that the place where the conduct was in the injury to occur is a more important and the plaintiff was of course a resident of indiana other factors favored the application of texas law since the silo that was that issue in that case was decided manufactured in texas the cause of action was directed in the cause this rifle is what is that is she in this case and that is why the place the place where the conduct of causing injury occurred is most significant on the inclusion section seventy one point zero three one does not apply in your case is under submission your case and all of the