In the United States, where each state constitutes a distinct jurisdiction for the purposes of tort law, different jurisdictions take different approaches to conflict of laws, and rules regarding conflict of tort laws apply equally to conflicts between the tort laws of two American states and conflicts between an American state and a foreign jurisdiction. Until the 20th century, traditional choice of law rules were based on the principle that legal rights vest automatically at legally significant and ascertainable times and places. For example, a dispute regarding property would be decided by the law of the place the property was located.7 Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws, §§208--310. Disputes in tort would be decided by the place where the injury occurred.9 Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws, §377. During the first half of the 20th century, the traditional conflict of laws approach came under criticism from some members of the American legal community who saw it as rigid and arbitrary; the traditional method sometimes forced the application of the laws of a state with no connection to either party, except that a tort or contract claim arose between the parties in that state.See e.g. Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Carroll, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803 (Ala. 1892) (holding Alabama employee could not sue Alabama employer for on-the-job injury because an accident occurred in Mississippi whose law disallowed the cause of action) This period of intellectual ferment (which coincided with the rise of the legal realism movement) introduced a number of innovative approaches to American choice of laws jurisprudence:Brainerd Currie, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (1963); Robert A. Leflar, Choice Influencing Consideration in the Conflict of Laws, 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 267 (1966). Renvoi: Under this approach, courts look for a provision in the law of the choice of the law state that permits the court to use the lex fori, i.e. law of the forum state. Significant contacts test: This test evaluates the contacts between the states and each party to the case, and determines which state has the most significant contacts with the litigation as a whole. Seat of the relationship test: This test specifically examines the relationship between the parties to the lawsuit, and uses the law of the state in which the relationship between the parties was most significant. Balance of interests test: This test examines the interests of the states themselves, and the reasons for which the laws in question were passed. It is the brainchild of University of Chicago law professor Brainerd Currie, who outlined the doctrine in a series of articles from the 1950s and 60s. Under this form of analysis, the court must determine whether any conflict between the laws of the states is a true conflict, a false conflict, or an unprovided-for case. A true conflict occurs when one state offers a protection to a particular party that another state does not, and the court of the state that offers no such protection is asked to apply the law of the state offering the protection. In such a case, if the interests are balanced, the law of the forum will prevail. A false or apparent conflict occurs when the state offering the protection has no actual interest in the endorsement of that protection against the particular parties to the case. In this case, since neither party is from the forum state, it has no interest in the application of the law to these persons. An unprovided-for case is one in which each party is seeking to apply the law of the other state. In such a case, the law of the forum will prevail. Comparative impairment test: This test asks which state's policies would suffer more if their law was not applied. This is similar to interest analysis, in that the interests of the state are taken into account - however, this test does not look to see which state benefits more from the application of its laws, but rather for situations in which the other state's interests will actually be harmed by the application of the laws of the forum state. Better rule test: The better rule test presupposes that, between the laws presented by the two or more states in which the action arose, there is one set of laws that is empirically better, and which is therefore more meritorious of application by the forum court. Use of the "better rule" test, like renvoi, is frowned upon because it appears to be little more than a gimmick to allow a court to apply the law of its own state.
In tHe uNiTED STatES, wHere eaCh statE conSTitUtes A distinct JuriSdIctiON fOr tHe pURpOses Of Tort LAw, difFErEnt JUriSdIctions Take dIfFerent apProAches to cOnflict Of lAWS, aNd rules regarDInG conFLicT of tOrt Laws apply equAlly To coNflicts beTween tHe TOrT laws of twO amerIcan StAtes anD ConflicTs betwEen an aMErican STaTe and a foreIgn juRISdiCtioN. until THe 20tH ceNTury, tRaDitional ChOiCe of law rules were BaseD on the prInciPle That LeGal riGhts vest autoMaTically AT legally signifIcanT And AscertAinable tiMes And placEs. foR ExAMple, A disPute regarDiNg propErtY wOUlD Be DeciDEd bY THe lAw of the PlAce The prOPErty wAS LoCATeD.7 resTateMEnt (FirsT) of CoNfliCt of laws, §§208--310. diSputEs iN tORt would be decIDeD by the plaCe whEre ThE INjury ocCurRed.9 reStatEMent (fiRST) Of cONfLict of lawS, §377. DuRinG the First HAlf Of the 20th cENturY, tHe traDiTionAL coNflict oF lAwS aPProaCH cAme uNDEr criticIsM from SoMe MEMbeRs Of THe AmEriCAn lEgaL cOmmUniTy who saw it as rigId And aRBItrarY; tHe tRadITiONal MeTHoD sometiMeS forced tHe aPPlicaTion of tHe LaWS of a STAtE wITh no ConnEctiOn To eiThEr pARty, except thaT a tOrT oR conTRact ClaiM AROse betWeEN the parTIEs IN tHat stAte.seE E.g. alabama g.s.R. Co. v. cArRoLl, 97 aLa. 126, 11 so. 803 (ALA. 1892) (holdiNg AlabAma employee cOULd not sUe alAbama emPloyeR for on-the-job iNJury BEcauSe AN ACcidEnt oCcuRred in missIssIppi wHosE law dIsalloWED the cauSE OF action) ThiS pERiOd of intelLectUaL feRMent (wHiCh coINCiDEd with the risE oF thE lEgAl reaLism movemenT) intrODUCeD a numBEr of iNnovativE aPpRoacheS To AMerican choice Of Laws JUriSprUdEnce:bRainerD currie, SeleCTed essaYs On tHe Conflict OF laws (1963); rObErt a. leFlaR, CHoice InfLuencing COnsidErATIOn iN ThE coNfLict of laws, 41 N.y.u. L. REv. 267 (1966). rENvOI: undEr tHIs aPPRoACh, courTs LooK for a proVision IN tHe laW Of the cHoICe of ThE lAw sTate thaT PERmits The COurT to uSe tHe lex foRi, i.e. lAw of thE foRum State. siGniFiCaNt conTacts teSt: this tEsT evAluates The COntaCtS beTween tHE staTes and EAch paRTY tO The casE, and deTeRmiNeS WhiCh StatE haS The mosT SiGnificant cONtActs with the litIGatioN as a whole. seAt Of The reLAtionShip tEst: This tEST sPecifIcally examiNeS thE RElatIonshIP bEtWeeN the paRtieS to The LAwsUit, aNd usEs the laW of thE state in wHich the reLatiONShIP beTwEen ThE ParTies was most sIgniFicAnt. balANCE oF inTErEStS teSt: thIs test ExAmIneS the interEsts oF thE staTeS themseLves, anD thE reAsoNs for whiCH the laWs iN quesTiON were passed. it is tHE braInchiLd of uNiversitY of chIcago LaW pRofeSsor BrAInErd cUrrie, who OUtlineD thE DoctRine IN a sEries Of aRTicLes fROM thE 1950S anD 60s. UNder tHis FOrm of anAlySis, tHE court musT deTErmine wHetHer aNy cOnflicT between the LawS Of the states is a true cOnfLiCT, a false ConFLIcT, or AN unprovidEd-foR case. A true cOnflict occurS When One StatE oFfers a ProTeCtion to a particuLaR parTY That anoTher stATE Does nOT, AnD THe coUrT of the statE tHaT offeRS no suCh prOtEcTion IS aSked to AppLy The law of thE StatE oFfErINg thE prOtectioN. In SucH a case, if tHE interEsts Are baLaNCEd, the law of the foruM Will pRevAiL. A falSE OR APparent cONfliCt occurs whEn the stAtE offerInG tHe ProtEction has No Actual inteRest in the eNdorsemENt Of ThAT PRotECtiOn Against thE particuLar PArties tO ThE case. in ThIs case, sInce neIther Party Is fRom thE forum StAte, It Has no intereST in tHe applIcatiOn Of The laW to tHese PersOnS. aN unPrOvided-For cAse Is oNe In Which EacH pArTY is seeKIng tO Apply The law oF the other stATe. in such a case, thE law of thE foRum will pReVaiL. COMparative imPAiRmENt tEsT: this Test Asks whicH stATe's POliciEs wouLd sufFer moRe iF their laW wAs not APplied. this is SimilAR to IntEReSt ANalySIs, in tHaT ThE inTErests of thE state aRe tAKen Into acCoUnt - HOweveR, ThiS tEst dOes Not look To sEe WhiCh stATE BEnefITs MOre From thE applicAtioN OF iTS lAWs, but raTher for sItuaTIons in wHiCH thE OtHer StatE's Interests will actuaLly be hArmeD By thE APpLiCation of the LawS of the foRum sTate. bEttEr rule test: tHE betTeR rUle tEst pReSUPPosEs tHaT, betweeN The lawS prEsenteD by ThE TwO or mOre statES In WhIch The action aroSe, ThERe Is oNe seT oF lawS that is emPiricaLly better, AND Which is TheREfoRe MORe mEritorIoUs of appLIcatIOn By the forum courT. usE of The "BEtteR RulE" test, like REnvoI, Is frOWNeD upon beCause it aPpEArs tO Be LittlE MoRe tHAn a gImmIcK to alloW a Court to appLy thE lAW of its oWn stAte.