Casey v. Manson Constr. Co.

66 Citing cases

  1. Berghammer v. Smith

    185 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1971)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Berghammer, the Supreme Court of Iowa cited to Casey, stating that "Oregon, too, has employed the rule ["that matters which depend on the marital relationship for their solution should [generally] be decided by the law of the husband-wife domicile"] in a consortium case, although denying recovery under the particular facts of the case because the place of marital domicile was held not the state of most significant relationship."

    Oregon, too, has employed the rule in a consortium case, although denying recovery under the particular facts of the case because the place of marital domicile was held not the state of most significant relationship. See Schneider v. Schimmels, 1967, 256 Cal.App.2d 366, 64 Cal.Rptr. 273; Casey v. Manson Construction and Engineering Company, 1967, 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898. Other courts have faithfully adhered to the lex loci rule in considering loss of consortium cases.

  2. Baedke v. John Morrell Co.

    748 F. Supp. 700 (N.D. Iowa 1990)   Cited 5 times

    [citing Berghammer]. . . . A closer question is presented where the place of occurrence is more than a mere fortuity, and, indeed, it has been held that where the spouse was injured while a business invitee on defendant's property, the jurisdiction of the place of the injury had a more significant contact with the case than did the law of the place of marital domicil. [citing Casey v. Manson Constr. Eng'g Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 I.2d 898 (1967) (en banc)]. Defendant's brief, filed April 2, 1990, at 15 (quoting Annotation, Conflict of Laws as to Right of Action for Loss of Consortium, 46 A.L.R.3d at 883).

  3. Superior Leasing, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corporation

    Civil No. 04-3099-CO (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2006)   Cited 4 times

    Rice v. United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co., 43 F. Supp.2d 1134, 1140-41 (D. Or. 1999). The "most significant relationship" rule as set out in the Restatement applies to tort actions.Casey v. Manson Constr. Eng'g Co., 247 Or. 274, 287-88 (1967); Erwin v. Thomas, 264 Or. 454, 455-56 (1973);Boydstun Metal Works, 1999 WL 476265, at *3. "Under that rule [of most significant relationship], the place of injury is not necessarily determinative of the substantive law which will be applied in a tort action.

  4. Wright v. Minter

    736 F. Supp. 1024 (W.D. Mo. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that "[w]hile Missouri has a significant interest in the issues involved in the underlying medical malpractice and products liability claims, it has little, if any, interest in the loss of parental consortium claim which arises only because of a familial relationship centered in Iowa"

    Both Sestito and Miller are distinguishable, however, since both were decided under the doctrine of lex loci delicti rather than the more modern significant relationship test of section 145. Defendants rely heavily on Casey v. Manson Construction and Engineering Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1967) (en banc), a case decided at a time when the applicable Restatement sections were in draft form. Plaintiff in Casey brought suit for loss of consortium after her husband sustained injuries as a result of defendants' negligence. Both plaintiff and her husband were residents of Oregon at the time and the injuries occurred in neighboring Washington. After stating its intention to abandon the traditional rule of lex loci delicti in favor of the then fledgling section 145 analysis, the Oregon Supreme Court held that Washington, as the place of the accident, had the most significant relationship to the facts underlying the lawsuit.

  5. O'Connor v. O'Connor

    201 Conn. 632 (Conn. 1986)   Cited 240 times
    Adopting the most significant relationship approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws

    A principled search for the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties will often cause foreign law to be recognized as the law that should govern the controversy. See, e.g., Neumeier v. Huehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 125-30, 286 N.E.2d 454, 335 N.Y.S.2d 64 (1972); Dym v. Gordon, 16 N.Y.2d 120, 125-28, 209 N.E.2d 792, 262 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1965); Casey v. Manson Construction Engineering Co., 247 Or. 274, 288-93, 428 P.2d 898 (1967). "There is no reason why a judge] should be less dispassionate in a conflicts case than in any other."

  6. Erwin v. Thomas

    264 Or. 454 (Or. 1973)   Cited 33 times
    In Erwin, a man who was a resident of Washington was injured in Washington by a truck driven by an Oregon resident and owned by an Oregon "corporation.

    Until recently, this court was committed to the traditional, arbitrary, and much criticized rule that in tort cases the law of the place of the wrong, lex loci delicti commissi, governs. However, in the case of Casey v. Manson Constr. Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1967), this court adopted the equally maligned and almost universally criticized "most significant relationship" approach of Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws. The writer of this opinion has a suspicion that where actual and substantial conflicts exist the problems are not capable of rational solution except on an ad hoc basis.

  7. Summers v. Interstate Tractor and Equipment Co.

    466 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1972)   Cited 72 times
    Applying Oregon law

    In 1967, however, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the rigid application of the place of wrong rule in favor of the rule that the law of the state with the most significant contacts with the occurrences and with the parties would determine the rights and liabilities in the action. Casey v. Manson Construction Engineering Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1967); see also, Lilienthal v. Kaufman, 239 Or. 1, 395 P.2d 543 (1964). The court, in Casey, was guided by the most significant contacts rule of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 379 (Tent.Draft No. 9, 1964), which provides:

  8. Brendle v. General Tire and Rubber Company

    408 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1969)   Cited 28 times
    In Brendle v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 408 F.2d 116 (1969), we were asked to apply the reasoning in Lowe's to a wrongful death action against an Ohio tire manufacturer.

    International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959) (admiralty); Williams v. Rawlings Truck Line, Inc., 123 U.S.App.D.C. 121, 357 F.2d 581 (1965); Watts v. Pioneer Corn Co., 342 F.2d 617 (7th Cir. 1965) (Indiana); Merchants Nat'l Bank Trust Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 409 (D.N.D. 1967); Zucker v. Vogt, 200 F. Supp. 340 (D.Conn. 1961), aff'd, 329 F.2d 426 (2d Cir. 1964); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 441 P.2d 699 (Alaska 1968); Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (1967); Wartell v. Formusa, 34 Ill.2d 57, 213 N.E.2d 544 (1966); Fabricius v. Horgen, 257 Iowa 268, 132 N.W.2d 410 (1965); Wessling v. Paris, 417 S.W.2d 259 (Ky. 1967); Kopp v. Rechtzigel, 273 Minn. 441, 141 N.W.2d 526 (1966); Mitchell v. Craft, 211 So.2d 509 (Miss. 1968); Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351, 222 A.2d 205 (1966); Mellk v. Sarahson, 49 N.J. 226, 229 A.2d 625 (1967); Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279 95 A.L.R.2d 1 (1963); Casey v. Manson Constr. Eng'ring Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1967); Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964); Woodward v. Stewart, 243 A.2d 917 (R.I. 1968); Wilcox v. Wilcox, 26 Wis.2d 617, 133 N.W.2d 408 (1965). For the reactions of leading conflicts commentators to this recent trend, see Comments on Babcock v. Jackson, 63 Colum.L.Rev. 1219 (1963); Comments on Reich v. Purcell: A Symposium, 15 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 551 (1968).

  9. Scheel v. Guideone Mut. Ins. Co.

    Civ. No. 3:15-cv-01112-AC (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2016)

    Thus, the court must determine which jurisdiction has the "most significant interest" in having its law applied. Casey v. Manson Const. & Eng'g Co., 247 Or. 274, 278-79 (1967); Citizens First Bank v. Intercontinental Express, Inc., 77 Or. App. 655, 657-58 (1986). In determining which jurisdiction has the "most significant relationship," Oregon courts have cited favorably the approach articulated in the Second Restatement, Conflict of Laws. Casey, 247 Or. at 278.

  10. Western Helicopter v. Rogerson Aircraft

    728 F. Supp. 1506 (D. Or. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Applying Oregon law

    In determining the law to be applied in a tort action, the courts of the State of Oregon apply the "most significant relationship" approach expressed in the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971). Casey v. Manson Constr. and Eng'g Co., 247 Or. 274, 287-88, 428 P.2d 898 (1967). The courts consider a number of factors in determining which state has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties: 1) the place where the injury occurred; 2) the place where the tortious conduct occurred; 3) the domicile, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; and 4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.