Questions on (so-called) unprovided-for cases.

1) An example of an unprovided-for case is Grant v McAuliffe, with the facts changed somewhat. In the original Grant, two Californians get into a car accident in Arizona. One dies. In California court, the surviving Californian sues the estate of the dead Californian. Arizona, the place of the wrong, does not allow survivorship actions. California does. BUT assume instead that the plaintiff in Grant was from Arizona, the defendant and his estate was Californian, and the accident was in Arizona. Why is this an unprovided-for case?

2) Neumeier v. Kuehner might also be understood as an unprovided-for case. An Ontario guest is riding in a New Yorker host’s car and the accident is in Ontario. As always, Ontario has a guest statute and New York doesn’t.

3) Why does Kramer think that unprovided-for cases do not generally exist? Why does he think that in fact there usually is a state interested in its law applying? In Neumeier, for example, Kramer would say that Ontario is interested in its tort law (minus the guest statute) applying. Why?

4) If Kramer is right, what are the perverse consequences of using Currie’s solution to (putative) unprovided-for cases?

5) In Erwin, is it really true that Washington prohibits lack of consortium actions by wives because it wants to protect defendants (particularly Washington defendants)? Is it really true that Washington would never be interested its law disadvantaging a Washingtonian in favor of an out-of-stater?

6) Can you think of an alternative explanation of why Washington prohibits loss of consortium actions by wives? Given your explanation, is Washington uninterested in its prohibition on wives’ loss of consortium actions applying to the facts of Erwin?