Opinion ID: 999110
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the place where the conduct causing the

Text: injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971). Section 6, in turn, provides: § 6. Choice-of-Law Principles (1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will fol- low a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law. (2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, 6 (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied. Id. § 6. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has criticized those jurisdictions that have adapted the Restatement approach for all conflicts-of-law questions, observing that those jurisdictions have unnecessarily created litigable issues over commonplace situations that the lex loci rules can handle predictably and with ease. Paul v. National Life, 177 W.Va. 427, 352 S.E.2d 550, 553-556 (1986). Nevertheless, the court has embraced the fuzzy Restatement test as the best means to address particularly thorny conflicts problems. Oakes v. Oxygen Therapy Services, 178 W.Va. 543, 363 S.E.2d 130, 131 (1987). We will therefore apply that test here.