In applying interest analysis to this conflict of law problem, it is necessary to understand the policies underlying the substantive law. To determine who the interested states are, and consequently, whose substantive law should apply we must first identify the legislative intent and the purposes of the law.
The lower court found for the defendant and granted him relief. Since Vermont is an interest analysis state in this appeal we need to examine the legislative intent behind the laws of the several states that may all have an interest in this suit to see whether the lower court erred in its decision.
Brainerd Currie’s version of interest analysis which has been most popular in the interest analysis jurisdiction, distinguishes between true conflicts, false conflicts and unprovided for conflicts. A true conflicts case exists where the laws of the interested states are truly inconsistent with each other. This means that the law of state A triggered by the fact pattern is inconsistent with the law of state B triggered by the same set of facts. In a true conflicts case, as Currie suggests, the lower court should apply the law of the forum. A false conflicts case arises when the laws of the interested states are not inconsistent with eachother. This means that the facts that gave rise to the application of state A’s law do not implicate the law of state B. In a false conflicts cases the laws of the states A and B may conflict facially, however since only one state’s laws is implicated by the facts there is not conflict. In the false conflicts case there is only one state that has an interest in seeing its laws applied. In the unproved for case no state’s law is meant to apply. It appears from the facts that the case at bar is either a true conflicts or a false conflicts case so it is unnecessary to analyze the issues of the unprovided for case.
There are four states whose interests might be implicated by the facts in this case. Those are Massachusetts, because that is where one plaintiff is from, is where the defendant is incorporated, has its principal place of business and has a manufacturing plant. Maine because it is where the machine was purchased by one of the plaintiffs. New Hampshire interest arises from the fact that the injury occurred there and also from the fact that the second plaintiff is a resident and domiciliary of that state. Finally, Vermont has an interest because it is the forum, the defendant has a manufacturing plaint in this state and the grill that is the subject of this suit was manufactured here. The inconsistent laws that are triggered by this fact pattern are related to damages.
The next step is to examine the laws triggered by this fact pattern so that we can identify the states that truly have an interest and weed out the ones that do not. The purpose of NH’s and MA’s law that only a prior pattern of willful conduct will justify punitive damages is to protect its own resident manufacturer against having to pay punitive damages in actions in strict liability . Since the defendant has no connection to NH, NH’s laws aimed at protecting its defendant manufactures are not triggered by these facts. Conversely, MA’s laws protecting its own manufactures from paying punitive damages is implicated by these facts. NH’s pro defendant laws are simply not triggered by the facts of this case and therefore should not be considered an interested state.
VT and ME law stipulates that mere gross negligence will trigger a claim for punitive damages. The plaintiff would have a lower burden of proof as required by VT and NH’s substantive laws in an action for punitive damages. More information would be helpful to establish the purposes behind VT and ME’s pro plaintiff laws. I will surmise, however like our purposes here, ME’s purpose in enacting the pro plaintiff laws are to protect its own residents from the harm caused by defective products and to protect all persons who are injured by products that are either purchased or manufactured within state borders. The grill was purchased in NH and was manufactured in VT. Since this is an action in strict products liability NH’s laws protecting purchasers of defective goods will not be implicated. If this suit was brought on breach on warranty or contract then NH’s laws would probably be triggered by these facts. VT’s laws are triggered because the product was manufactured in VT and VT’s laws were designed to allow punitive to plaintiffs who are injured by defective products manufactured in VT.
The interested states are therefore VT and MA and this is a true conflicts case. In a true conflictgs case the law of the forum will be the substantive law in deciding liability and damages. VT’s substantive laws should therefore apply and the plaintiffs should be able to collect punitive damages if they can prove that the defendant was grossly negligent. The trial court’s decision is reversed and new proceedings should begin to determine whether the defendant was grossly negligent pursuant to VT law.
BETTER LAW
In this action against the defendant manufacturer for strict liability in the defective design and/or manufacture of grill purchased and operated by the plaintiffs. The conflicts of laws arise from the various interests of four different states in this action. Whether the lower court erred in its decision favoring the defendant will turn on whose law is the appropriate substantive law to apply to the facts of the suit.
Vermont is a better law jurisdiction and we will follow Leflar’s guidelines in selecting the state whose substantive law should apply. Leflar’s guidelines broadly considers 5 factors including, the interest of the forum and implicated states, the predictability of results and the better law in selecting the appropriate substantive law. In this appeal I will discuss these factors and how they apply to the case at bar. Based on the concerns raised by these five factors, I will ultimately select the state whose substantive will most adequately govern the suit.
Predictability of Results. This factor of the better law rule is concerned with achieving the same result regardless of the forum. Better law seeks to achieve uniformity and predictability of results by preventing forum shopping. Courts that have adopted the better choice rule have recognized the unimportance of predictability of results in tort suits. Milkovich v Saari. Since no one can predict where or when the injury resulting from tortious conduct will occur, this court will give little weight to this factor. Predictability of results is more important in suits for breach of contract. Jepson v General Casualty Co of Wisconsin.
Maintenance of Interstate and International Order This factor addresses the concerns, interests, and needs of all states or nations that may be effected by the outcome of the suit. The objective of weighing this factor in the better law analysis is to ensure smooth conduct of affairs between people of different states or nations. This factor also ensures that if the forum state’s interest is negligible its interests will be subordinate to the interests of other states.
In order to ensure smooth conduct of affairs between people of different nations and to make sure that the interests of all states in the suit at bar are adequately addressed, this court must examine the concerns of MA, NH, VT and ME. The analysis requires a careful examination of the laws of the states that are implicated by this fact pattern. MA is the principal domiciliary of the defendant as it is incorporated there, has its principle place of business in that state and has a manufacturing plant there. The MA laws relevant to this suit reflect a governmental interest in protecting its resident manufacturers against excessive claims in punitive damages. Similarly, NH’s laws regarding punitive damages in strict liability are designed to protect the resident manufacturer from excessive monetary claims. NH ‘s interest in this suit should not be given that much weight because the defendant has no ties to NH. Applying NH law would not address NH’s interest in this case. ME and VT applicable law both protect the plaintiff. Under these state’s applicable law the plaintiff can collect punitive damages without much difficulty.
VT’s concerns in the matter can be adequately addressed through the application of VT law. The purpose of VT’s law in awarding punitive damages if the plaintiff can prove mere gross negligernce (as opposed to NH and MA where plaintiff is required to show a prior pattern of willful conduct to receive punitive damages) is to protect its residences from dangerous defective products to protect the interests of all people how have been injured by defective products manufactured by its own residences. VT’s interests are implicated by these facts because the product was produced and created in VT and because the defendant has a plant in VT. VT’s laws will adequately address VT’s interests in allowing people who have been injured by manufacturers based in VT to seek punitive damages. ME also has an interest in the matter because the actual product was sold in ME. However, unlike VT, ME is not host to a plant of the defendant. Since this is strictly a products liability suit the only defendant in this matter is the manufacturer. ME’s laws are designed to protect people from products manufactured within its borders. These laws do not apply to the distributor or retailer who carries the products only for sale. Since ME’s laws are not triggered by this fact pattern, ME’s interests are minimal in this suit.
Simplification of the Judicial Task This element allows the foreign state to apply it’s own rules of procedure. The question on appeal is whether the lower court erred in the application of substantive law. This element is not really relevant to this suit.
Advancement of the Forum’s Governmental Interest This element addresses the legitimate concerns of the forum state. The forum state has a genuine concern with the facts of a suit brought within its court. Addressing the concerns of the forum state require an understasnding of the policy decisions involved in law-making and law-administering.
As explained above VT has an interest in this matter beyond it being the forum. The defendant manufacturer has a plant within VT’s borders and it is this exact plant where the defective product was produced. VT’s laws are applicable to this very situation because the purposes of these laws are to allow plaintiffs injured by VT manufacturers to collect punitive damages. Because of these facts VT’s interests should receive a lot of weight
Better law This factor is generally given the greatest weight. Milkovich. Unlike the other traditional conflicts of law rules, better law considers content. After consideration of objective standards the judge should apply the law which is the preferred law with will achieve justice in the specific situation. Better law is not the law with which the judge is most comfortable but is the law which adequately addresses socio-economic concernsl. The objective to the better law approach is to apply the law of the land most equipped to fairly govern the issue.
We feel that VT law is the better law. VT law will adequately address the plaintiffs injury by allowing plaintiffs fair access to punitive damages. The application of VT does not automatically award punitive damages to the plaintiffs as they would still have to prove that the defendant was grossly negligent in its design or manufacuture of the grill. Applying VT law will be well in line with the defendant’s expectations because they would expect to be subject to VT’s law since they operated a plant in VT. Given the reality of speedy movement and communication in today’s world, the defendant should reasonably assume to be exposed to sued in VT putrusant to VT substantive laws by residnecs of all states
In conclusion, VT government has priority interest in the matter and VT is the forum state. VT law seems to be the better law because it reasonably addresses the plaintiffs concern and is in line with the expectations of the defendant. Unless the trial court found that the plantiff couled not meet the standard of gross negligence, the trial court erred in fining for the defendant.
The above essay was written by a college student and merely states opinions of a college student. However, if you feel strong about responding to the opinions stated, please write to articles@directorym.com and express your concerns.