A Neu Neumeier: The Need for a More Flexible Framework for Choice of Law in the State of New York

only way to create a foundational document could stand test of time was to build in enough flexibility later generations would be able to adapt it to their own needs and uses. (1) INTRODUCTION During second half of twentieth century, choice of law principles in United States came under heavy criticism. (2) Choice of law disputes arise in cases involve facts connected to different and require courts to determine which jurisdiction's law should apply. (3) Initially, increasing complexities surrounding this field of law led majority of jurisdictions in United States to follow choice of law rule in tort actions (also commonly referred to as lex loci delicti) (4) embodied in original Restatement of Conflict of Laws: the substantive rights and liabilities arising out of a tortious occurrence are determinable by law of place of tort. (5) This theory posited that a right to recover for a foreign tort owes its creation to law of jurisdiction where injury occurred and depends for its existence and extent solely on such law. (6) However, doctrine--once praised for its ease of application and predictability--soon became discredited for its rigidity and ignorance of other interested jurisdictions. (7) Thus, traditional rule was abandoned by majority of jurisdictions, in search of a rule was less mechanical and allowed for greater flexibility in its application. (8) New York played a major role in evolution of modern choice of law theories, and its jurisprudence and case law are still given considerable attention by conflicts theorists. (9) The New York Court of Appeals led charge against traditional approach, and became first jurisdiction to openly abandon it as its rule. (10) However, while New York was once a respected leader in field of conflict of laws, its influence in field has decreased over last several decades. (11) This is a direct result of Court of Appeals' pronouncement to be first jurisdiction to adopt a rigidly applied mechanical framework for a set of rules would govern all future tort conflict situations, which has come to be known as Neumeier rules. (12) Since adoption of these rules, not a single jurisdiction has followed suit; majority have instead elected to adopt alternative conflicts approaches, primarily of Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws. (13) These other jurisdictional approaches differ from approach adopted in New York, primarily in their fluidity and ability to adapt to particular circumstances involved on a case-by-case basis. In June 2011, Court of Appeals was presented with a question of first impression--a unique case had never before reached its courtroom--involving questions of choice of law concerning defendants [who were] jointly and severally liable to nondomiciliary plaintiffs in a tort action arising out of a single incident within State of New (14) The case, Edwards v. Erie Coach Lines Co., involved multiple defendants, domiciled in Ontario and Pennsylvania, who were in a car accident in State of New York. (15) The majority's holding in case, and application of New York's choice of law rule, highlighted deficiencies in Neumeier rules: their rigid nature and inability, at times, to render a fair and equitable result. Moreover, court's decision in Edwards brings to forefront reason New York has fallen behind in conflicts field and is no longer major and esteemed player it once was: its choice of law framework is inadequate to deal with wide range of cases and circumstances arise in multistate and international system exists today. While a set of mechanical rules can be useful, goals of uniformity and predictability should not be accentuated at expense of bedrock principles such as fairness, justice, and equity. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.