Conflict of Laws. The “most-significant-relationship rule” is a choice of law doctrine adopted in many jurisdictions that assists the courts in determining which laws to apply to the issues presented in a case where conflicting laws of multiple states may potentially apply to said issues. Under this rule, the court determines which state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties of the case, and applies to laws of that state to the case. In applying the most-significant-relationship test, the court considers, (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the residence of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship of the parties is centered.
The most-significant-relationship test was recognized in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as follows:
(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in s 6.
(2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of s 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(a) the place where the injury occurred,
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred,
(c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 145 (1969 Main Vol.). However, “the Restatement test does not authorize a court to simply add up the interests on both sides of the equation and automatically apply the law of the jurisdiction meeting the highest number of contacts listed in Sections 145 and 6. Section 145 has a qualitative aspect. It clearly states that the ‘contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.'” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Lake, 594 A.2d 38, 48 n.6 (Del. 1991).
REFERENCE DESK
Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer, LLC, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1152-53 (W.D. Wash. 2017):
If an actual conflict exists, Washington requires application of the law of the forum that has the “most significant relationship” to the action. Application of the “most significant relationship” test is a two-step process. First, the court determines which state has the most significant relationship to the cause of action. Second, if the relevant contacts to the cause are balanced, the court then considers the interests and public policies of potentially concerned states and the manner and extent of such policies as they relate to the transaction at issue.
In determining the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, the court considers (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. The court’s approach is not merely to count contacts, but rather to consider which contacts are the most significant and where those contacts are found.
Esser v. McIntyre, 169 Ill.2d 292, 297-300 (1996):
To determine which law applies, we look to the conflicts law of Illinois, the forum State. [Illinois courts have] rejected the lex loci delicti doctrine and adopted the most significant relationship test for deciding among conflicting laws. Under this test, the law of the place of injury controls unless Illinois has a more significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties. When applying the most significant relationship test, a court should consider (1) where the injury occurred; (2) where the injury-causing conduct occurred; (3) the domicile of the parties; and (4) where the relationship of the parties is centered. The court must look at the contacts of the jurisdictions under these four factors and then evaluate those contacts in light of the policies underlying the laws of those jurisdictions.
Brewer v. Dodson Aviation, 447 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1175-76 (W.D. Wash. 2006):
Where an actual conflict of laws exists, the Court must determine which state’s law to apply. To make this choice of law determination, the Court applies the “most significant relationship” test, as outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 (1971).
The first step in determining which state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties is to take into account the following contacts: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue and are to be considered while applying the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6. The Court’s approach is not merely to count contacts, but rather to consider which contacts are most significant and to determine where these contacts are found.
If the contacts are evenly balanced, the second step of the analysis is to consider the interests and public policies of the concerned states. The extent of the interest of each potentially interested state should be determined on the basis, among other things, of the purpose sought to be achieved by their relevant local law rules and the particular issue involved.
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. CNN Broadcasting, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1353-54 (N.D. Ga. 2020):
Because this is a diversity action filed in Georgia, the Court applies Georgia’s choice-of-law provisions. Georgia follows the doctrine of lex loci delicti, which provides that a tort action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed. Despite this, Plaintiff asks the Court to apply the “most significant relationship test” from the Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Law. In reliance on this test, Plaintiff claims the law of the jurisdiction where the publication occurs determines the rights and liabilities of the parties . . .
Plaintiff’s analysis of legal authority contains several errors. First, Plaintiff ignores the fact that, after the Georgia Court of Appeals applied the Restatement’s test in Triguero, the Georgia Supreme Court rejected that approach. Albeit not in a defamation case, the Georgia Court reached the “inescapable conclusion … that the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is not superior to the traditional rule of lex loci delicti currently used in Georgia.” The Georgia Supreme Court made it clear that “the rule of lex loci delicti remains the law of Georgia.” In the light of Dowis, Triguero has little weight. Second, even if Triguero applied, the Georgia Court of Appeals in that case did not interpret the place of publication as the place where the defamatory statement was uttered as Plaintiff suggests. Rather, it identified the place of publication as the location where the tortious statement was received (in that case the Netherlands). Triguero thus does not support Plaintiff’s quest to apply Georgia law. Finally, while Plaintiff cites Adventure Outdoors for its application of the Restatement’s most significant relationship test, it fails to note that the Adventure Outdoors court later reconsidered the issue and—following Dowis—concluded “Georgia would not apply the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws under any circumstances, but would rather apply the traditional choice of law principles of lex loci delicti.” All of this is to say the Court can find no legal authority for applying the most significant relationship test under Georgia’s choice-of-law analysis and, instead, applies the doctrine of lex loci delicti.