M07 Assignment

Instructions

Instructions:

Assume that you are working with a law firm that represents the defendant in the following hypothetical. Your assignment is to write a memo that predicts how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which follows the Second Restatement, will resolve this conflict of laws. Following the fact pattern is a table. Imagine that the bullet points (within the table) are your notes from a conversation with your supervising attorney about your forthcoming memo. In other words, she has given you something of a head start. But by her own account, her thoughts are preliminary and incomplete, and you should reach your own conclusion. Include with your memo a specific numerical answer to the question: In your estimation, what is the percentage of likelihood that the court will apply Pennsylvania law?

Fact Pattern:

Purdy is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She was working as a delivery person for Supplier Quality Foods, Inc. (Supplier), which delivered items to all of Derner Grocery Markets, Inc. (Derner) in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. In a typical week, Purdy delivers to 24 Derner locations in Pennsylvania, 8 in Delaware, and 1 in Maryland. Supplier and Derner are Pennsylvania corporations with their principal places of business in Philadelphia.

Approximately one year ago, Purdy drove to the Derner market in Elktown, Maryland, for her regular delivery. Purdy entered the store to notify them of her arrival, and returned to her truck. She then walked up the ramp into the stores warehouse pulling a handcart behind her that was loaded with approximately 300 pounds of boxes. She held the door with one hand and pulled the cart through the doorway with the other, so her body was twisting as she walked. She looked straight ahead as she walked into the warehouse, not at the ground. As she took two steps inside the warehouse, she tripped over the forks of a pallet jack. As the forks of the pallet jack were low to the ground and a similar color to that of the warehouse floor, she did not see them before she tripped. Purdy fell to the ground and permanently injured her knee.

Pennsylvania has a comparative negligence statute that allows plaintiffs to recover with a partial right to recovery provided they are not more than 50% negligent. Maryland still utilizes the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, which insulates defendants from tort claims if the plaintiff is negligent to any degree.

If Purdy files her suit against Derner in Pennsylvania, and if Pennsylvania follows the Second Restatement, is this a comparative negligence case or a contributory negligence case?

Second Restatement

(Torts)

Rebuttable Presumption

• 146? 157? 164? 171?

6(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems

• Any pressures to respect Maryland law here for sake of interstate commerce?

6(b) the relevant policies of the forum

• Why comparative negligence?

6(c) the relevant policies of the other interested states

• Why contributory negligence?

6(d) the protection of justified expectations

• Applicable in this tort case?

6(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law

• Premises liability?
• Workplace injuries?
• Tort law/Negligence?

6(f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of results

• Surely we arent a forum shopper, right?

6(g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied

• Is it easier to apply comparative or contributory negligence?

145 Contacts to be taken into account include:

1. The place where the injury occurred

• Maryland?

1. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred

• Maryland?

1. The domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties

• Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, +Delaware?, +Maryland?

1. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered

• Pennsylvania? Maryland?