law of the state. The question remained as to which state's law would apply. To determine the solution to this controversy, the Appellate Court asks and answers three questions: If the case had been brought in Massachusetts state court, would Massachusetts have brought in the Maine burden of proof?Answer: no, because Massachusetts courts have already held the burden of proof to be merely procedural, and those are decided by the law of the forum. Would the U.S. Supreme Court have any reason to reverse Massachusetts on such a decision?Answer: no, because nothing in the Constitution requires Massachusetts to follow the same conflicts of law principles as any other state (especially since the Massachusetts law was statutory). Does the invocation of diversity of citizenship change any of this?Answer: no, because Federal District Courts are tied to the law of the state they are in, not free to choose the law of the state they prefer. Besides, then the Fed. Court would have treat the burden-of-proof law of Massachusetts as procedural in order to ignore it, but at the same time would have to treat the burden-of-proof law of Maine as substantive in order to apply it, which would be inconsistent. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and remanded, with an instruction to the district court to apply the Massachusetts burden of proof. References External links United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases Diversity jurisdiction case law 1940 in United States case law Conflict of laws case law Road incidents in the United States Transportation in Maine