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
into a car accident in Arizona.
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
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
statute and New York
3) Why does Kramer think that unprovided-for cases
generally exist? Why does he think that in fact there usually is a
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
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
defendants (particularly Washington
defendants)? Is it really true that Washington
would never be interested its law disadvantaging a Washingtonian in
favor of an
6) Can you think of an alternative explanation of
prohibits loss of consortium actions by wives? Given your explanation,
uninterested in its prohibition on wives’ loss of consortium actions
facts of Erwin?