Conflicts of Law
TOPIC: JURISDICTION
OVER THE RES
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert - 330 U.S. 501, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947)
RULE:
If the combination
and weight of factors requisite to given results are difficult to forecast or
state, those to be considered are not difficult to name. An interest to be
considered, and the one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of
the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses;
possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action;
and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious
and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforceability of a
judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and
obstacles to fair trial. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
FACTS:
Respondent-plaintiff,
Virginia resident, and public warehouse operator brought a
tort action in New York alleging that the petitioner-defendant, in
violation of the ordinances of Virginia, so carelessly handled a delivery of
gasoline to his warehouse tanks and pumps as to cause an explosion and
fire which consumed the warehouse building, caused injury to his business,
and burned the property of customers in his custody under warehousing
agreements. Petitioner-defendant oil company is a Pennsylvania corporation,
qualified to do business in both Virginia and New York, and it has designated
officials of each state as agents to receive service of process. When sued in
New York, the defendant, invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
claimed that the appropriate place for trial is Virginia, where the plaintiff
lives and defendant does business, where all events in litigation took place,
where most of the witnesses reside, and where both state and federal courts are
available to plaintiff and are able to obtain jurisdiction of the
defendant. The case, on its merits, involves no federal question and
was brought in the US District Court solely because of diversity in
citizenship of the parties. The District Court considered that the law of New
York as to forum non conveniens applied and that it required
the case to be left to Virginia courts. It therefore dismissed the action. The
Court of Appeals disagreed as to the applicability of New York law, took a
restrictive view of the application of the entire doctrine in federal courts
and reversed. On certiorari, the court reversed.
ISSUE:
Did the district
court abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit pursuant to the doctrine
of forum non conveniens?
RULING:
No. The court
concluded that the district court had not exceeded its powers or the bounds of
its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and remitting it to the
courts of his own community. The appeals court judgment was too
restrictive. The task of the trial court would be simplified by trial in
Virginia. If trial was in a state court, it could apply its own law to
events occurring there. If in federal court by reason of diversity of
citizenship, the court would apply the law of its own state in which it is
likely to be experienced. The course of adjudication in New York federal court
might be beset with conflict of laws problems all avoided if the case is
litigated in Virginia where it arose.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson - 444 U.S. 286 (1976)
RULE:
A state court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as
there exist "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum
State. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two
related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the
burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure
that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits
imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Kay Eloise
Robinson, E.M.R, a minor, and Harry Robinson, who were residents of New York,
were injured in an automobile accident that occurred in Oklahoma. Thereafter,
they filed a products liability action in Oklahoma state court against
defendants World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation and Seaway Volkswagen, which were
the distributor and retailer, respectively, of the automobile the Robinsons
were driving at the time of the accident. Defendants, which were incorporated
in New York and did business there, entered a special appearance in the
litigation, asserting that Oklahoma's exercise of jurisdiction over them would
offend the limitations on state jurisdiction imposed by the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court rejected the due process claim.
Defendants then sought a writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma
to restrain the trial judge, respondent Honorable Charles S. Woodson, from
exercising in personam jurisdiction over them. The writ was denied on the
ground that personal jurisdiction was authorized by a provision of Oklahoma's
"long-arm" statute. That statute authorized an Oklahoma court's
exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a person who caused tortious injury
in Oklahoma by an act or omission outside Oklahoma if that person regularly did
or solicited business or engaged in any other persistent course of conduct, or
derived substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in
Oklahoma. Defendants were granted a writ of certiorari.
ISSUE:
Did the Oklahoma
court's exercise, under its long-arm statute, of in personam jurisdiction over
defendants violate due process?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme
Court of the United States reversed the Supreme Court of Oklahoma's judgment
denying defendants' petition for a writ of prohibition. The Court held that a
state court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
only so long as there existed minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum
state. The defendant's contacts with the forum state must be such that
maintenance of the suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice, and the relationship between the defendant and the forum
must be such that it was reasonable to require the defendant to defend the
particular suit which is brought there. In the instant case, the Court ruled,
there was a total absence in the record of those affiliating circumstances that
were a necessary predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction.
Defendants carried on no activity whatsoever in Oklahoma; they closed no sales
and performed no services there, availed themselves of none of the benefits of
Oklahoma law, and solicited no business there either through salespersons or
through advertising reasonably calculated to reach that state.
Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643 (1950)
Syllabus
In a proceeding under
§ 6 of the Virginia "Blue Sky Law," the State Corporation Commission
ordered an Association, located in Nebraska and engaged in the mail order
health insurance business, and its treasurer (appellants here) to cease and desist
from further offerings or sales of certificates of insurance to Virginia
residents until the Association had complied with the Act by furnishing
information as to its financial condition, consenting to suit against it by
service of process on the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and obtaining a
permit. Notice of the proceeding was served on appellants by registered mail,
as authorized by § 6 when other forms of service are unavailable. They appeared
specially, challenged the jurisdiction of the State, and moved to quash the
service of summons. On recommendations from Virginia members, the Association
for many years had been issuing insurance certificates to residents of
Virginia, and it had approximately 800 members there. It had caused claims for
losses to be investigated, and the Virginia courts were open to it for the
enforcement of obligations of certificate holders.
Held:
1. The State has
power to issue a cease and desist order to enforce at least the requirement
that the Association consent to suit against it by service of process on the
Secretary of the Commonwealth. Pp. 339 U. S. 646-647.
2. The contacts and
ties of appellants with Virginia residents, together with that State's interest
in faithful observance of the certificate obligations, justify subjecting
appellants to cease and desist proceedings under § 6. Pp. 339 U. S. 647-648.
3. Virginia's
subjection of the Association to the jurisdiction of the State Commission in a
§ 6 proceeding is consistent with fair play and substantial justice, and is not
offensive to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 339 U.
S. 649.
4. The power of the
State to subject the Association to the jurisdiction of the State Commission
and to authorize a cease and
desist order under §
6 is not vitiated by the fact that business activities carried on outside of
the State are affected. P. 339 U. S. 650.
5. Service of process
on appellants by registered mail did not violate the requirements of due
process. Pp. 339 U. S. 650-651.
188 Va. 877, 51
S.E.2d 263, affirmed.
An order of the
Virginia Corporation Commission requiring appellants to cease and desist from
offering and issuing, without a permit, certificates of insurance to residents
of the State, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals. 188 Va. 877, 51
S.E.2d 263. On appeal to this Court, affirmed, p. 339 U.
S. 651.
Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel
Driscoll Hotel
illegally sold liquor to Sorrensen in Minnesota, causing the latter to be drunk
so that the automobile driven by him wherein Schmidt was a passenger, turned
over and thus caused injuries to Schmidt in Wisconsin. MTD for lack of COA: the
law does not punish acts the result of which happened in another state. Court
held that since all the parties involved are residents of Minnesota and the
violation of the respondent occurred in Minnesota, its wrongful conduct was
complete in Minnesota, the plaintiff, who is also a resident of Minnesota,
should be allowed to recover.
FACTS:
Johnson Sorrensen was illegally sold liquor by Driscott Hotel Inc.
(doing business as Hook-Em-Cow Bar and Café) in Minnesota.
(probably Sorrensen is a minor)
Sorrensen became
intoxicated before he left the Café. Sorrensen, together with Herbert Schmidt
(who is a minor), drove towards Wisconsin where the vehicle
they were riding turned over, thus causing injuries to Schmidt. Thereafter, Schmidt,
through his mother and natural guardian, sued Driscoll Hotel for selling the
liquor illegally to Sorrensen
According to Minnesota
Civil Damage Act: unless the illegal sale in the state was followed by an
injury IN THAT STATE, no penalty by way of damages may be recovered (Minnesota
laws DO NOT HAVE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT)
ISSUE:
Whether Schmidt could
recover from the Corporation for its illegal act done in Minnesota when the
injuries incurred by him happened in Wisconsin?
RULING:
YES. General Rule: the
place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an actor
liable for an alleged tort takes place. The law of the place of wrong
determines whether a person has sustained a legal injury (Restatement)
Hence, the place of
the last event is Wisconsin but Wisconsin has no similar law such as that of
Minnesota Civil Damage Act, then Driscoll Hotel should have not been held liable.
In the case at bar,
two error was made by schmidt:
1.
By Driscott hotel: sold to sorrenson intoxicating liquors in
violation of MSA - there's no tort law applicable but even if there was,
there was nothing to support a claim that a defendant ever consented to be
bound by Wisconsin law
2.
By Sorrenson: negligence caused the car to turn over - there might be
wisconsin tort law applicable
However, both
interest of Wisconsin and Minnesota would be ineffective if this would be the
case!
Wisconsin
|
Minnesota
|
Afford remedies it
deems proper for those injured there as a result of foreign violations of
liquor laws
|
Admonishing a
liquor dealer whose violation of its statutes was the cause o such injuries
and providing the injured party a remedy under Civil damages act
|
Exemption: when
the interests/policy behind the laws would be rendered ineffective!
Here:
- All parties are
residents of Minnesota
- Driscott Hotel
was licensed under its laws and required to operate its establishment in
compliance w/ Minnesota law
- Plaintiff is a
Minnesota citizen
- Violation of
Minnesota statute occurred in Minnesota, when, as a result, sorrenson
became intoxicated before leaving its establishment
Ma'am: Schmidt
illustrates imposition of liability under a substantive rule of tort law that
has a strong underlying admonitory policy
AMERICAN
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONFLICTS TORT LAW
*determination of whether the law where the tort was committed or the
law of the domicile of the parties is the controlling law*
·
Law of where the tort was committed: proper law in questions
involving regulation of conduct
·
Law of the domicile of the parties: governs in matters that relate
to loss-distribution or financial protection
FOREIGN TORT CLAIMS
"Tortiuous liability is Transitory"
·
liability resulting from the conduct is "deemed personal to the
perpetrator of the wrong, following him wherever he may go, so that
compensation may be extracted from him in any proper tribunal which may obtain
jurisdiction of the defendant's person
·
right to sue not confined in the place where the COA arises
·
AN ACTION FOR TORT MAY BE BROUGHT WHEREVER THE TORTFEASOR IS SUBJECT TO
SUIT
·
CONDITIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF TORT CLAIMS
When foreign tort
given due course in the forum court:
·
The foreign tort is based on a civil action and not on a crime
·
The foreign tort is not contrary to the public policy of the forum
·
The judicial machinery of the forum is adequate to satisfy the claim
Problem: defendant
often sued in a foreign court against his will
·
Problem of legitimacy of the jurisdiction
·
Problem of validity of the decision
·
PRODUCTS LIABILITY OF THE FOREIGN MANUFACTURER
SOURCE(S)
Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert - 330 U.S. 501, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947). Retrieved
August 28, 2020, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-gulf-oil-corp-v-gilbert
World-Wide Volkswagen
Corp. v. Woodson - 444 U.S. 286 (1976). Retrieved
August 28, 2020, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-world-wide-volkswagen-corp-v-woodson-988759619
Schmidt v. Driscoll
Hotel, Atty. Cha Mendoza. Retrieved August 28, 2020,
from
Travelers Health
Assn. v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643 (1950). Retrieved August 28, 2020, from
![Reviewer for DOST-SEI Undergraduate Scholarship Examination [DOWNLOAD]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWZ6Vnrzdhsnvix_faSKaShGj2OxolFRfG34QthqyvaLBjMwNE39oDc_Q4wNfx0NlwlRD71_S3-_CVJStIlQ9zOzhvkCuL4GS1VVFHMe9SQ1vBRtB0NAp7boI9cCGNsT0c0ECZ6NpEVic/w100/siyensyabilidad2a.jpg)
0 Comments