Court Opinion

ID: 9616509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:47:26.244072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:25.151794
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
concurring.
After consideration of all the circumstances and the situation as a whole, it seems more logical to apply the law of the State of Washington. If it were otherwise, Washington citizens carrying on activities in Washington would have to lift their financial protection to an unaccustomed level and one which would' be dependent upon the locality from which the injured *295party might come. Theoretically, citizens of Washington could he subjected to 49 different levels of responsibility for acts done within their state of residence, and this seems to me highly undesirable. It seems more reasonable that under the present circumstances “ * * * By entering the state or nation, the visitor has exposed himself to the risks of the territory and should not expect to subject persons living there to a financial hazard that their law had not created.”①
At this time I am doubtful that I desire to be finally wedded to the methods of the second restatement as set forth in the majority opinion.
Goodwin, J., concurs in this opinion.

 Cavers, The Choice-of-Law Process (1965), 147.