Questions on False Conflicts
1) Sometimes the term "false conflict" is used when the two states
whose laws might conceivably apply have the same laws. But is it true
that no conflicts analysis is necessary in such a case? Think of
Missouri's and New York's statute of frauds in Marie v. Garrison...
2) More commonly the term false conflict is used to refer to a case
where only one state is interested in applying its law. Is Babcock a
false conflict case?
3) Was Dym
v Gordon a true conflict case? If it was was it correct for the court
to resolve the conflict against New York law?
4) How does the court in Tooker turn the case into a false conflict?
How does it distinguish Dym?
5) If guest statutes are about preventing fraud, should any of the
following be relevant to determining the applicable law - where the car
is registered? where the insured is domiciled? where the insurer is
incorporated, where the insurer has the most customers?
about Susan Silk? Should New York law apply to her too?
7) Why is charitable immunity considered a loss allocating rule in
8) Is domicile really relevant to a charitable immunity law? Isn't what
suggests the application of New Jersey law in Schultz the fact
that the tort arose out of New Jersey charitable activities (whetever
people's domiciles might be).
9) Is New York’s
absence of charitable immunity a loss
allocating rule whose applicability should be assessed on the basis of
domicile? Or isn't it a conduct regulating rule? If it is the latter,
isn't this a true conflict case?
10) The majority in Schultz says the following:
The three reasons most often urged in support of applying the
law of the forum-locus in cases such as this are: (1) to protect
medical creditors who provided services to injured parties in the locus
State, (2) to prevent injured tort victims from becoming public wards
in the locus State and (3) the deterrent effect application of locus
law has on future tort-feasors in the locus State. The first two
reasons share common weaknesses. First, in the abstract, neither reason
necessarily requires application of the locus jurisdiction's law, but
rather invariably mandates application of the law of the jurisdiction
that would either allow recovery or allow the greater recovery. They
are subject to criticism, therefore, as being biased in favor of
Is that right?