- Deter socially undesirable acts (STANDARD OF CONDUCT) - preserve social order
- Rectify consequences of these acts - distribute the losses - pay people
Torts vs. QD
US: Torts include both intentional acts and negligent acts
Spanish: only negligence (no criminal intent)
RP: halo
Culpa aquiliana: no contractual relationship, no intent
DOLO: w/ intent
Policies behind TORT LAW (2)
e.g. Traffic Rules - prescribes certain speed, only a particular age can drive
What is the speed limit in Manila? (haha no one knows )
In determining applicable law: look at the policies of the states, uphold justified expectations of parties
Justified expectations: how?
If company: expect that when you deal continuously with something…
e.g. School bus company - expect that they might be an accident wherein they would be sued
Law of the place of torts
-either the place where the conduct which produced the injury or the place where the last act was made (where injury sustained)
-BUT as long as there is an acknowledgment of the liability, the tortfeasor is liable everywhere
| common law concept | Civil law concept |
| -looks at the place where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort occurs. -adheres to the vested rights theory so that if the harm does not take place then the tort is not completed. -No COA w/o injury | -place where the tortious conduct was committed -at the time of acting, we should know that it would give rise to certain liability; if it was not an actionable act, why expect that you would be punished? |
| Place where injury incurred | Place where tortious conduct made |
*Tort is transitory
-if a person has already been held liable in one place, he could be held liable anywhere he could be found
Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. (brought before NY courts)
Summary: Loucks killed in Massachusetts by negligent act of Standard Oil's employees. However, his heirs are residents of NY, so they brought action before NY courts. NY courts now resolves WON the action may be enforced in NY using Massachusetts law as COA.NY Court held that it was not against NY's public policy to allow the enforcement of a right of action which was granted by a foreign law to the claimants as they had a vested right which the court should help protect.
*On public policy: even if there's not the same law, and they would not get as much, since the claim is not a violation of NY's public policy, then the claimants should be allowed to claim!
*highlight FUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC POLICY - meaning not just public policy since all laws are presumed to reflect public policy of the state under which it was created
Disadvantages of using TRADITIONAL APPROACH:
Alabama Railroad Case: if just follow the law of the place of injury, even if that place has no connection to the parties except the fact that the injury happened there, then may result in unjust results
MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA
Summary: A Filipina stewardess was attempted to be raped by fellow male attendants who were Saudi nationals in Indonesia. The complaint for attempted rape was filed but when she got in Saudi Arabia, Saudi authorities questioned her and forced her to drop the charges against the two Saudi nationals. Before she left for Manila, she was brought by ER to courts and made to sign Arabic documents (all in the pretense that it was routine procedure in dropping case against Saudi nationals) but was instead sentenced for adultery and other violations of Islamic laws and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and lashes. With assistance of RP embassy, Saudi officials (*I want to curse here but since this would be posted online, I better not…WTF…) admitted they wrongly accused Filipina. Still, Saudi Arabian Airlines terminated the contract. Filipina filed for damages against airline company in RP courts, which Saudi Arabian Airlines contested, saying that RP lacked substantial interest in the case. Court held that RP courts have jurisdiction since both the plaintiff and defendant claimed reliefs from RP courts, and that RP law is applicable since the injury is in RP and it is of no consequence that the other acts happened abroad (then goes the long long discussion on PRIL)
*2 issues: jurisdiction and choice of law
Jurisdiction: no forum non conveniens because they are a foreign resident corporation and no inconvenience on their part
Choice of law: Philippine law
…had the court stuck to the traditional approach, Saudi Arabian law would apply (because there is where she was fired - the last act that caused injury)
-good example to show that the modern approach is beneficial to the claimant and the automatic application of the traditional approach would work an absolute injustice
INTEREST ANALYSIS
-look at which state/s has interest to protect or enforce its laws
False conflict vs. True conflict
Babcock Case: Even if accident happened in ONTARIO, all the parties are from NY and Ontario has no interest in enforcing their law in this situation
Critique: here, it involves the interests of private litigants and not the interests of the state in making the said law!!!
-the state is encouraged to exaggerate it's interest
CAVERS
-only when there's true conflict in applying its own laws
-states what to do when there's a true conflict (there's two or more states who claim that their laws should be applicable)
e.g. State of Injury's liability laws are stricter
State of conduct more lenient
What law would be applied: apply higher standard of conduct - thus the stricter law????
Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel
Summary: 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.
-what policy Minnesota law wants to uphold: not to give drinks to persons already drunk and intoxicated - Drunk Shop Act
-whenever special controls are imposed by law, the benefits and protections are extended even outside their territories (aaah…un pala un…haha yey!)
No comments:
Post a Comment