Erwin v. Thomas
264 Or. 454, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 478, 506 P.2d 494 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a conflict of laws analysis, if an examination of the states' respective governmental interests reveals that neither state has a substantial interest in the application of its law to the specific facts, a 'false conflict' exists, and the law of the forum state will be applied.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and her husband are residents of the state of Washington.
- Defendant Thomas is an Oregon resident employed by defendant Shepler, an Oregon corporation.
- While acting in the course of his employment in Washington, Thomas negligently operated a truck and injured plaintiff's husband.
- As a result of her husband's injuries, plaintiff suffered a loss of consortium.
- Washington common law does not provide a cause of action for a wife's loss of consortium.
- An Oregon statute, ORS 108.010, explicitly grants a wife a cause of action for loss of consortium.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for loss of consortium in an Oregon trial court.
- Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and entered a judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff refused to plead further.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Oregon law, which permits a wife to sue for loss of consortium, apply in a suit brought in Oregon by a Washington resident against Oregon residents for an injury that occurred in Washington, a state which does not recognize such a cause of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, J.
Yes, Oregon law applies. Before applying a complex choice-of-law test, a court should first conduct a governmental interest analysis to determine if a true conflict exists. Washington's policy of denying consortium claims is to protect Washington defendants from liability; since the defendants here are from Oregon, Washington's interest is not implicated. Oregon's policy of allowing such claims is primarily to protect Oregon wives; since the plaintiff is from Washington, Oregon's interest is not vital. Because neither state has a substantial policy interest in applying its law, no true conflict of policies exists. In such a situation, the forum court should apply its own law as a matter of convenience.
Dissenting - Bryson, J.
No, Oregon law should not apply. The Oregon statute creating a right of action for loss of consortium was intended to benefit Oregon wives, not to bestow statutory rights upon residents of other states. The plaintiff's marital relationship is domiciled in Washington, and matters concerning interspousal rights should be governed by the law of the marital domicile. By allowing this suit, the majority permits a Washington resident to circumvent her own state's law by forum shopping in Oregon. A clear conflict of policy exists between the two states, and Washington law should control.
Analysis:
This case establishes governmental interest analysis as a key preliminary step in Oregon's choice-of-law jurisprudence for torts. It refines the 'most significant relationship' test by creating a threshold inquiry into whether a 'true conflict' or 'false conflict' exists based on state policies. By holding that a forum court should apply its own law in a false conflict scenario where neither state has a vital interest, the decision provides a practical default rule. This approach moves Oregon law away from rigid territorial rules (lex loci delicti) and toward a more flexible, policy-oriented analysis in conflict of laws cases.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Erwin v. Thomas (1973)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"