O'Connor v. O'Connor

Majority - Peters, C. J.

Yes, Connecticut law permits an injured person to pursue a cause of action for tortious conduct that occurred in a jurisdiction where such an action is not permitted, when Connecticut has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. The court abandons its traditional adherence to the lex loci delicti (law of the place of injury) doctrine in tort actions, finding it to be an anachronism based on an outdated "vested rights theory" and widely criticized by legal scholars and a majority of other state courts. Strict application of lex loci often leads to arbitrary and unjust results, making choice of law dependent on fortuitous circumstances, especially in unintentional tort cases where parties do not plan their conduct based on conflict of laws rules. The court rejects arguments for retaining lex loci, including legislative prerogative (as courts created the rule), stare decisis (which is less compelling when prior conduct wasn't determined by the rule), certainty/predictability (undermined by judicial "escape devices"), and preventing parochialism (achievable through principled choice-of-law analysis). Instead, the court adopts the "most significant relationship" test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which provides a more comprehensive and equitably balanced approach for cases where lex loci would produce an arbitrary, irrational result. Under Restatement (Second) §§ 145(1) and 6, the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties should govern. Key contacts include the place of injury/conduct, and the domicil/residence of parties and where their relationship is centered. Here, Quebec's interest as the place of injury is not significant for the issue of allowing a tort action, as its no-fault scheme primarily aims to compensate its own residents and reduce insurance premiums there, none of which apply to two non-residents. The location of the accident in Quebec was purely fortuitous. Conversely, Connecticut has significant contacts as both parties are domiciliaries and their relationship is centered there. Connecticut's no-fault act embraces the policy of providing access to the courts for seriously injured persons, which would be frustrated by applying Quebec law, especially since Roseann's continuing injuries and expenses are borne in Connecticut. Therefore, Connecticut has the most significant relationship to the controversy, and its law should apply.