RE: Lorimer
Dan Perry ( dperry@unigard.com )
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:07:42 -0800
Darci, I think the overall idea is that if it is nebulous which laws =
from
what state should apply, the interests of the parties involved are =
looked
at, and from that it is decided which laws of what state should apply. =
In
the example they gave, the two people have significant contact with =
state Y
but not with state Z, so the law of state Y would apply. Imagine for a
moment that the laws were reversed, that is, there was no statutory =
limit
for wrongful death in Z but there was a limit in Y, and the legal
representative of Bob tried to bring the action in Z. The court in Z =
could
decide that since both the injured party and the defendant had little
contact with Z (in fact, maybe it was the first time either had ever =
been
there), so therefore they should bring the action in Y where their =
families
are located. I hope this is somewhat helpful.
=A0
I think the rule of significant contacts has nothing to do with the =
size of
awards, but rather in what state did the parties involved in the legal
action have "significant contact." Some situations could be difficult =
to
determine what laws should apply. For example, suppose we have a =
situation
where a wrongful death occurred, and both parties lived in Connecticut =
but
worked in New York (which some people do!). Do you apply the laws of =
New
York or Connecticut? Since they both live in Connecticut, I would think =
the
laws there would apply, but on the other hand, if they worked long =
hours,
and lived by themselves, and only basically slept in their homes, and =
spent
most of their awake hours in New York, perhaps the laws of New York =
should
apply. It all gets down to what state do they have significant contact =
with.
=A0
I am not sure if I fully understand the Comparative Impairment Test =
either.
I think the question to be answered in this case has more to do with =
the
interests of the states rather than the interests of the legal parties
involved. I think the central question is which state would be affected =
more
adversely if its laws were not applied. It could be an "image" thing to =
some
extent, in that a state may look bad on the outside if they do not =
apply
their laws to a particular situation. However, I will also request
clarification on this from the rest of the group, as I could be off on =
this
one.
=A0
I am not sure if there is a better way to go through the articles than =
as
they are listed in the syllabus. Has anyone else found a better way? Of
course, I have not succeeded on this one yet, so I am open to new ways =
to
get through (slog through?) this stuff. Please let me know what you =
think.
=A0
Thanks all.=A0
=A0-----Original Message-----
From: Noonan.Darci [mailto:Noonan.Darci@aaa-calif.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 1:09 PM
To: 'studygroup8@lists.casact.org'
Subject: Lorimer
Does anyone understand the different types of interest analysis well =
enough
to explain them better than Lorimer, or have examples that might clear =
them
up?
Rule of significant contacts:=A0 How do you decide which state better =
protects
its citizens?=A0 Which one allows the largest awards (most beneficial =
to the
injured)? The smallest (most beneficial to the defendent)?=A0 The =
example
given in the text wasn't very clear, because it still didn't say which =
state
would be used under each test or rule.
It seems the same questions would arise when using the Comparative
Impairment Test.=20
Is there any better order to read the articles in then what is listed =
in the
syllabus?=20