United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1705

___________

Cynthia Bourgeois, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Douglas Vanderbilt; Southern *

Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance *

Company; State Farm Mutual *

Automobile Insurance Company; *

National Interstate Insurance Company, *

*

Defendants, * Appeals from the United States 

* District Court for the

Harrah's Bossier City Investment * Western District of Arkansas.

Company, LLC, also known as *

Harrah's Louisiana Downs Casino * [UNPUBLISHED]

& Racetrack, also known as Louisiana *

Downs, Inc. *

*

Defendant/Appellee. *

___________

No. 10-1706

___________

Cynthia Bourgeois, * 

*

Plaintiff, *

v. *

*

Douglas Vanderbilt; Southern Farm *
1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Bureau Casualty Insurance Company; *

State Farm Mutual Automobile *

Insurance Company; National Interstate *

Insurance Company, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Harrah's Bossier City Investment *

Company, LLC, also known as Harrah's *

Louisiana Downs Casino & Racetrack, *

also known as Louisiana Downs, Inc. *

*

Defendant/Appellee, *

*

National Interstate Insurance Company, *

*

Intervenor/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2010

Filed: May 17, 2011

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 2005, a truck driven by Douglas Vanderbilt (a Texas resident) struck a tour

bus operated by Cynthia Bourgeois (a Louisiana resident) on a highway in Arkansas.

Vanderbilt was intoxicated, driving home from a trip to Harrah's casino located in

Shreveport, Louisiana. By way of this action, Cynthia Bourgeois seeks redress for the

injuries she incurred as a result of the accident. The district court,1

 sitting in diversity
2

National Interstate Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for

Dixie Land Tours and an intervenor in these consolidated proceedings, is also a named

appellant and, upon motion, joined in Bourgeois' briefing. 

3

"Under the doctrine of lex loci delicti, the law of the place where the wrong

took place is the proper choice of law." Ganey v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 234

S.W.3d 838, 846 (Ark. 2006).

-3-

and applying Louisiana substantive law, granted summary judgment in favor of

Harrah's. Bourgeois appeals.2

A district court sitting in diversity generally applies the choice-of-law rules of

the forum state. Global Petromarine v. G.T. Sales & Mfg., Inc., 577 F.3d 839, 844

(8th Cir. 2009). Here, the district court looked to Arkansas choice-of-law principles

to determine which state's substantive law applied. Arkansas courts have moved away

from a mechanical application of the lex loci delicti doctrine3

 and have adopted five

choice-influencing factors promulgated by Dr. Robert A. Leflar ("Leflar Factors") to

soften the application of the rigid lex loci delicti rule. Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc.,

201 S.W.3d 917, 920-22 (Ark. 2005). Thus, while keeping the lex loci delicti doctrine

in mind, the district court analyzed the following five factors: (1) predictability of

results; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the

judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests; and (5)

application of the better rule of law. Schubert, 201 S.W.3d at 921. "We review a

district court's choice-of-law determination de novo." Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer

Exp. Von Bahnbaumaschinen Gesellschaft, MBH, 495 F.3d 582, 585 (8th Cir. 2007).

In this case, which state's law the court applies is likely outcome determinative

because only under Arkansas law does Bourgeois retain the possibility of recovery.

The Louisiana legislature adopted an anti-dram shop liability act that provides

immunity to vendors and servers of alcohol, thus placing responsibility for

consequences of intoxication on the intoxicated person. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

9:2800.1(B). Arkansas, however, allows recovery of damages if a plaintiff proves that
-4-

a vendor "knowingly sold alcoholic beverages to a person who was clearly

intoxicated." Ark. Code Ann. §§ 3-3-209, 16-126-104. On appeal Bourgeois asserts

that the five Leflar Factors favor the application of Arkansas law, not Louisiana law.

Should we affirm the district court's application of Louisiana law, Bourgeois

additionally argues that there is an unresolved question in Louisiana law regarding the

existence, or not, of an exception to the anti-dram shop liability statute that should be

addressed by the Louisiana State Supreme Court in the first instance. Bourgeois also

requested certification of certain questions to the Arkansas State Supreme Court

specifically regarding whether Arkansas dram shop law can be applied to a Louisiana

casino and whether Arkansas would apply only the law of negligence to this case

because Harrah's served, rather than sold, free liquor to Vanderbilt. 

The district court did not err in applying Louisiana law to the issues at hand.

See Ganey, 234 S.W.3d at 846-47 (applying the Leflar Factors under similar

circumstances and determining that Louisiana law applied). The court aptly applied

the Arkansas choice-of-law principles and thoroughly analyzed each of the five Leflar

Factors in light of the facts of this case, as required. After careful review of the

district court's well-reasoned opinion, including its discussion of negligent

entrustment, we deny Bourgeois' motion requesting certification to the Arkansas and

Louisiana State Supreme Courts, and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________