Opinion ID: 2218628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: what are the alternatives?

Text: Once we properly resolve to finally depart from the lex loci rule and its public policy exception, we must decide on the appropriate approach to follow. Note that I have said approach not a rule. As stated by Professor Reese at 57 Cornell L.Rev. 315 (1972), By `rule' is meant a phenomenon found in most areas of the law, namely a formula which once applied will lead the court to a conclusion. To be sure, there will inevitably be questions as to a rule's proper scope of application, including questions of how the words that comprise the rule should be defined or interpreted. Once it has been decided what a rule means and how it should be applied, however, a conclusion will be reached through the rule's application. By `approach' is meant a system which does no more than state what factor or factors should be considered in arriving at a conclusion. There seem to be three generally accepted approaches in dealing with choice of law conflicts: (1) dominant contacts; (2) governmental interest; and (3) choice-influencing considerations. 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws, §§ 103-105 (1979); 15A C.J.S. Conflict of Laws § 8(4) (1967); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 2d § 145 (1969); Annotation, Modern Status of Choice of Law in Application of Automobile Guest Statutes, 63 A.L.R.4th 167 (1988); Annotation, Choice of Law Considerations in Application of Aviation Guest Statutes, 62 A.L.R.3d 1076 (1975); Annotation, Modern Status of Rule that Substantive Rights of Parties to a Tort Action are Governed by the Law of the Place of the Wrong, 29 A.L.R.3d 603 (1970). Much has been written on all of these approaches. Although I give citations to various writings on these alternatives, I will not make detailed comparisons. Suffice it to say that the dominant contacts approach was first adopted by New York in Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 191 N.E.2d 279, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743 (1963), [11] and has since been generally adopted as the most significant relationships approach in the Restatement, supra. The governmental interest approach was adopted by California in Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 432 P.2d 727, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31 (1967). The choice-influencing considerations approach was refined by Professor Leflar and ultimately adopted by the State of Wisconsin in Heath v. Zellmer, 35 Wis.2d 578, 151 N.W.2d 664 (1967). [12] Various other states, including Minnesota, Arkansas, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, have followed Wisconsin's lead.