Daly, Michael J.

English

DOCS@RWU

Roger Williams University Law ReviewVolume 7 | Issue 2 Article 8Spring 20022001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Conflictof LawMichael J. DalyRoger Williams University School of LawFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LRThis Survey of Rhode Island Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion inRoger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact mwu@rwu.edu.Recommended CitationDaly, Michael J. (2002) "2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Conflict of Law," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 2,Article 8.Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol7/iss2/8418 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 7:403Conflict of Laws. Najarian v. National Amusements, Inc., 768A.2d 1253 (R.I. 2001). In personal injury actions, the law of thestate where the injury occurs determines the rights and responsi-bilities of the parties unless the law of another state has a moresignificant relationship to the issue.FACTS AN-D TRAVELIn July, 1994, Hope L. Andersen (Andersen), a resident of EastProvidence, Rhode Island, went to the Showcase Cinema in Seek-onk, Massachusetts with her sister and brother-in-law to see amatinee movie.1 The group purchased their tickets and proceededto the theatre in which their movie was showing. When the grouparrived at the theatre, Andersen looked in and "was amazed at theutter darkness."2 The group stepped into the theatre and Ander-sen moved to a small standing room area to her left while herbrother-in-law searched the theatre for vacant seats.3 Shortlythereafter, as Andersen was about to proceed to a group of emptyseats that her brother-in-law had located, she attempted to steadyherself by leaning on a wall that she mistakenly thought was toher left. There being no wall where she thought there was one,Andersen fell to the ground and broke her hip and left elbow.4Andersen filed a negligence suit against National Amuse-ments, Inc. and Showcase Cinemas 1-10 (collectively, Showcase) inRhode Island Superior Court.5 Andersen alleged that Showcasefailed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe mannerthereby causing her fall and injury.6 Specifically, Andersen al-leged that Showcase was negligent in failing to provide adequatelighting, adequate signs and personnel to assist patrons enteringthe theatre. 7Prior to trial, Showcase filed a motion in limine seeking to ap-ply Massachusetts law to the case.8 Under Massachusetts law, re-1. Najarian v. Nat'l Amusements, Inc., 768 A.2d 1253, 1254 (R.I. 2001). An-dersen died in December 1995 and Carol Najarian, as executrix of Andersen's es-tate, was substituted as the plaintiff.2. Id.3. Id.4. Id.5. Id.6. Id.7. Id.8. Id.SURVEY SECTIONcovery would be barred if Andersen's negligence exceededShowcase's. 9 Conversely, "Rhode Island applies 'pure' comparativenegligence under which there is no such cut-off limitation to recov-ery."10 The trial judge denied Showcase's motion and appliedRhode Island's pure comparative negligence law.1After trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Showcase fortypercent negligent and Andersen sixty percent negligent. 12 Show-case appealed for a new trial claiming, among other things, thatthe trial judge erred in applying Rhode Island law rather thanMassachusetts law.' 3 The appeal was denied and judgment wasentered accordingly. 14 Thereafter, Showcase appealed to the su-preme court.' 5BACKGROUNDRhode Island courts apply an "interest-weighing" approach indeciding choice of law questions.' 6 Under this approach, a courtlooks to the particular facts and applies the law of the state thatbears the most significant relationship to the event and the par-ties. 17 In personal injury actions, the law of the state where theinjury occurs determines the rights and responsibilities of the par-ties unless the law of another state has a more significant relation-ship to the issue.18 Factors relevant to that inquiry are "(1)predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and interna-tional order; (3) simplifcation of the judicial task; (4) advancementof the forum's governmental interests; and (5) application of thebetter rule of law." 19 In applying these factors to tort cases, con-tacts to be considered are "' (a) the place where the injury occurred,(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) thedomicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of9. Id. (citing Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 231, § 85 (West 2000)).10. Id. (citing R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 (2001)).11. Id.12. Id.13. Id. at 1254-55.14. See id. at 1255 (vacating the judgment of the superior court).15. Id.16. Id. (citing Woodward v. Stewart, 243 A.2d 917, 923 (R.I. 1968)).17. Id.18. Id. (quoting Blais v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 526 A.2d 854, 856-57 (R.I.1987) (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 146)).19. Id. (quoting Pardey v. Boulevard Billiard Club, 518 A.2d 1349, 1351 (R.I.1986)).20021 419420 ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 7:403business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, ifany, between the parties is centered. '"'20ANALYSIS AND HOLDINGThe supreme court applied the above listed factors when itconsidered the choice of law question presented by Showcase. Al-though Andersen was a Rhode Island domiciliary and Showcaseboth advertised and registered as a foreign corporation in RhodeIsland, the court held that Massachusetts had the most significantinterest in this case. 21 The injury and alleged negligent conductcausing the injury occurred in Massachusetts. The relationshipbetween Andersen and Showcase was entered into in Massachu-setts. The headquarters of National Amusements and the place ofbusiness at issue were Massachusetts. Moreover, the partiesmight reasonably have expected Massachusetts law to apply to aninjury that occurred at a Massachusetts movie theatre. 22 Further,Massachusetts has a significant interest in regulating premises li-ability for Massachusetts premises. 23 Thus, concerns with predict-ability and maintenance of interstate order weigh in favor ofMassachusetts. 24 Accordingly, the trial judge erred in applyingRhode Island law rather than Massachusetts law. 25Because Massachusetts law denies recovery in personal injurycases where the plaintiffs negligence exceeds the defendant's neg-ligence, as was found in this case, the supreme court vacated thejudgment of the superior court and the case was remanded withinstructions to enter judgment for defendant based on the applica-tion of Massachusetts law. 26CONCLUSIONIn personal injury actions, the applicable substantive law isdetermined by location where the injury occurred unless there areother factors showing that the laws of another state have a more20. Id. (quoting Brown v. Church of the Holy Name of Jesus, 252 A.2d 176, at179 (R.I. 1969) (quoting Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws, § 145(2) (1971))).21. Id.22. Id.23. Id.24. Id. (citing Pardey, 518 A.2d at 1351).25. Id.26. Id. at 1255-56.20021 SURVEY SECTION 421significant relationship to the issues. In Najarian, Rhode Islandlaw did not bear a significant relationship to the issues such thatits application was required. Rather, concerns with predictabilityand maintenance of interstate order called for the application ofMassachusetts law.Michael J. Daly

2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Conflict of Law

HELIN Digital Commons

https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1228&amp;context=rwu_LR

2001Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Conflict of Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DOCS@RWU

HELIN Digital Commons

HELIN Digital Commons