Opinion ID: 1204495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Analysis Applied.

Text: I resort to § 145 to ascertain the relevant and important contacts to be applied when applying the test set forth in § 6. Beginning with § 145(2)(a), I note that the accident giving rise to plaintiff's suit occurred in Idaho. Nevertheless, it is true that with respect to the State of Idaho's claim against Stack Steel for negligence vis-a-vis the decedent, the fact that the accident occurred in Idaho was fortuitous, as I mentioned above. This diminishes the importance of this factor. Subsection (2)(b)the place where the conduct causing the injury occurredfavors application of Washington law. As I have pointed out, the State of Idaho's third-party action, by which it seeks contribution or indemnification, alleges negligence on Stack Steel's part, which contributed to Mr. Barringer's death. This alleged negligencethis conduct causing the injury must have occurred, if at all, in Washington at Stack Steel's place of business. This fact favors application of Washington law, which would be the most interested in governing conduct occurring in Washington. Subsection (2)(c)the residence of the partiesfavors neither party materially. Stack Steel is a Washington-based corporation. The State of Idaho speaks for itself. Both parties, obviously, have an interest in having the law of their respective jurisdictions apply. The fact that Mr. Barringer was, and Mrs. Barringer is, a Washington resident, is of little importance on this issue, for determination of which law applies with respect to contribution and indemnification does not materially alter Mrs. Barringer's suit against the State of Idaho. Subsection (2)(d)the place where the relationship between the parties is centeredfavors Washington law. At first glance this may not appear to be so, for there does not appear to be any relationship in which to center when only Stack Steel and the State of Idaho are considered. Nevertheless, upon closer inspection it is clear that the crucial relationship on this point is the one between Stack Steel and Mr. Barringer. Again, the State of Idaho's claim needs to be reviewed. The State's claim for contribution or indemnification is grounded in its allegation that Stack Steel was negligent toward the decedent, Mr. Barringer. That relationship was centered in Washington. I am cognizant that it is the accident in Idaho which brings the parties before us today. Nevertheless, I cannot emphasize enough that the State's claim is for contribution. Stack Steel, if negligent at all, is not liable for any tort to the State of Idaho. Its contribution liability, if any, only derives from its negligence to its employee, Mr. Barringer, and in this context the relationship's focal point is Washington. Therefore, with respect to the issue of employer immunity from contribution liability, the factors enumerated in § 145 favor application of Washington law. As the factors set forth in § 145 indicate, the contribution and indemnification issue depends upon the relationship and conduct between Stack Steel and its employee, Mr. Barringer, which relationship was centered in Washington. With the above said and done, the contacts discussed need to be considered in light of the choice-of-law principles of § 6. I begin with subsection (2)(a)the needs of the interstate system. Comments to this subsection state that the issues raised by this factor include the harmonious relations between states, the facilitation of commercial intercourse between states, and the adoption of the same choice of law rules by the states. With respect to the first two issues specified, I find the first one to be of little consequencethe interests of each state, which I will describe more fully below, cannot be harmoniously accommodated. The second issuepromoting interstate commercial activityweighs in favor of applying Washington law. A Washington employer required under Washington law to pay set premiums, does so with the expectation that should worker accidents arise, they will be completely compensated for pursuant to the Industrial Insurance Act, with there being no chance of any suit or third-party action brought against it. Should this expectation be eliminated because a worker, although paid worker's compensation benefits under Washington law, is injured in another state, the employer may be less inclined to engage in such interstate business (where benefits will be paid under Washington law, affecting the employer's premiums, even though injury occurs out of the state). At the least, the employer may decline to pay premiums to cover its employees' activities outside Washington. While these reasons are not of paramount significance, they do militate toward having Washington law apply. With respect to the third issue mentioned, there is a dearth of case law on this topic, primarily because a great majority of the states have judicially held or statutorily declared that an employer whose concurring negligence contributed to an employee's injury cannot be sued directly or joined by a third party as a joint tort-feasor, whether under contribution statutes or at common law. 2A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, §§ 76.20, 76.81. [3] Hence, the possibility that this conflict of law between allowing or not allowing contribution will arise has been minimal. I have, however, found one case directly on point. In Elston v. Industrial Lift Truck Co., 420 Pa. 97, 216 A.2d 318 (1966), a Pennsylvania worker brought an action in a Pennsylvania court against a Pennsylvania manufacturer of a lift truck for damages incurred while in the course of employment. The worker was injured in New Jersey, and workers' compensation benefits were paid pursuant to New Jersey law, which, as Washington law does, prohibits any form of contribution from the employer. The lift truck manufacturer sought contribution from the worker's employer, a New Jersey employer. At the time of the accident, Pennsylvania law, in conflict with New Jersey law, allowed a limited contribution to the extent of workers' compensation benefits paid by the employer as does Idaho law. [4] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied an analysis similar to that of the Restatement and held that New Jersey law should apply. The court said in part: New Jersey has the paramount interest in the manner by which its workmen's compensation program will be administered. New Jersey has undertaken to define the obligations of an employer for injuries to his employees and makes that obligation the exclusive liability of the employer. ... In return for providing compensation benefits for any and all injuries which arise in the course of employment, irrespective of fault, the employer is not only granted immunity from common law liability, but is also given a right of subrogation to the extent of compensation benefits paid in the event a third-party tortfeasor is held liable for the injury.... This right of subrogation exists irrespective of the fact that the employer may have been concurrently negligent. Elston, supra, 216 A.2d at 323 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The court went on to say: In resolving the instant conflict, it is significant to note that the Pennsylvania policy in favor of permitting contribution between joint tortfeasors has been subjected to modification when that policy conflicts with our workmen's compensation program. The limitation imposed on the extent to which the employer is subjected to liability to the third-party tortfeasor reflects a paramount concern with the policies underlying workmen's compensation and the priority of those policies over the equities underlying contribution. Id. at 324 (emphasis added). The Elston opinion is sound lawit is based upon reason and presents unassailable logic. Thus, this Court's following its lead in this case would not only mean reaching the right result for the right reasons, but would further establish in the interstate system a principled approach to the difficult problem before us. Subsection (2)(b)the relevant policies of Idahoare easily outlined. Idaho, as the forum state, has an interest in favoring contribution between tort-feasors. As this Court said in Masters v. State, 105 Idaho 197, 200, 668 P.2d 73, 76 (1982), Contribution is a remedy deeply rooted in the principles of equity, fair play and justice. The policy underlying contribution, however, has been modified in Idaho when it conflicts with our workers' compensation schemeas previously noted, in Idaho, contribution from an employer is limited to the amount of workers' compensation benefits for which the employer is liable. Tucker, supra . This limitation, as the Elston court pointed out, reflects a paramount concern in Idahothe forum statewith the underlying policies of workers' compensation, and the priority of those policies over the equities underlying contribution. Subsection (2)(c)the relevant policies of Washingtonare likewise easily described. Washington law is unequivocal in declaring that employers are not to be held liable from any suit or claim of contribution in cases such as this one. The granting of immunity is the quid pro quo for a Washington employer's paying set premiums into the state's Industrial Insurance Fund. Disrupting that immunity undermines the incentive on the employer's part to pay its premium and be covered by the Fund. As noted above in the Elston case, this immunity interest is extremely important to smooth-working and effective workers' compensation, and when such an interest is weighed against those interests underlying a limited contribution, it has been held to be of paramount interest. [5] Section 145 of the Restatement states that subsections (2)(d)the protection of justified expectationsand (2)(f)certainty of resultare insignificant in the area of determining which state's tort law is applicable. While I agree in general, the facts of this case indicate they are important considerations. Stack Steel has a justified expectation that its paying into Washington's Industrial Insurance Fund will insulate it from liability where workers' compensation benefits are paid under Washington law. This, I conclude, is a weighty expectation. The State of Idaho, however, likewise has an expectation that the general law of contribution and indemnification in Idaho will apply to suits brought against it in a court of this state. This, too, is a weighty expectation, which I hold to be equal to that of Stack Steel. Accordingly, subsection (2)(d) is inconclusive. Subsection (2)(e)basic policies underlying this area of lawhave been set forth above in our discussion of subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c). My conclusion is that both Idaho and Washington recognizeto varying degreesthat the underlying policies of workers' compensation is paramount to those of contribution. Subsection (2)(f)certainty and predictabilityand (2)(g)ease in determination and application of the law to be applied appear to me to favor having Washington law apply. The majority declares that application of Idaho law will enhance certainty and predictability. This argument does not favor the majority at all. It is true that the majority has guaranteed certainty and predictability in this area of law by declaring, as it has done for all practical purposes, that Idaho law always will apply. I do not believe, however, that this is the type of certainty and predictability the authors of the Restatement envisioned when they wrote § 6. If it were, why bother with conflict of laws analyses at all, and, instead, simply say that the law of the forum state will always apply? That would guarantee certainty. It would also establish provincialism as a governing rule of lawa rather discomforting thought for me. Conflict of laws decisions depend upon the particular facts and policies of the specific case at hand. By their nature, they must be decided on a case-by-case approach. Thus, differences in result will occur. This should not be shocking or disturbing. The certainty and predictability the Restatement envisions, I believe, relates to the implementation and application of a proper and fair analysis of the issue by which any given set of facts can be applied to it and a result reached that is reasonable and foreseeable. This I do not find in today's decision.