Opinion ID: 2044356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: choice of law in personal injury action

Text: [3-5] The Yoders first argue that Iowa law should have applied in this case and that the district court erred when it applied Nebraska law. In a personal injury action, the question of whether to apply the law of the state where the injury occurred or the law of another state is a question of law. [5] In answering any choice-of-law question, the court first asks whether there is any real conflict between the laws of the states. [6] At oral argument, the Yoders essentially admitted that there is no difference between Iowa law and Nebraska law as it pertains to battery and negligence. We note that while Iowa law would allow the Yoders to collect punitive damages unavailable in Nebraska, no other substantial differences exist. [7] [6] Even if substantial differences did exist, however, Nebraska law would still apply. The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 [8] states that [i]n an action for a personal injury, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties, unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship.... [7] We have recently applied § 146. We noted that `in virtually all instances where the conduct and the injury occur in the same state, that state has the dominant interest in regulating that conduct.' [9] We went on to explain that every state has an interest in compensating its domiciliaries for their injuries. [10] In this particular case, both the Yoders and Cotton are residents of Nebraska. The IME took place in Nebraska. The Yoders have given no reason to apply Iowa law other than arguing that Yoder was ordered to undergo the IME because of his Iowa workers' compensation claim. We therefore apply Nebraska law to the Yoders' claims.