 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dowis v. Mud Slingers10/24/2005
This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Dowis v. Mud Slinger Concrete, 269 Ga. App. 805 (605 SE2d 615) (2004), to consider whether the conflict of laws rule lex loci delicti shouldbe retained in Georgia. For the reasons which follow, this Court will not abandon the traditional rule.
Johnny Edwin Dowis ("Dowis"), a Tennessee resident, was hired by a Missouri corporation, Mud Slingers, Inc. ("Mud Slingers"), whose president is Michael Clement Graves ("Graves"), to hang large sheets of precast plaster molding at a national chain hotel in Roswell, Georgia. Dowis was injured at the Roswell project when he fell four stories from the basket of a telescopic boom forklift operated by Graves.
Mud Slingers had workers' compensation insurance in Missouri, where Dowis filed his claim and received benefits. Dowis later filed this tort action in Georgia seeking damages against Mud Slingers and Graves. Dowis argued that, under Missouri's workers' compensation law, he could collect benefits and bring a tort action against Mud Slingers and/or Graves. Applying the exclusive remedy provision of the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, OCGA § 34-9-11 et seq., and the lex loci delicti rule regarding the applicable substantive law, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that lex loci delicti and the consequent application of Georgia's exclusive remedy provision precluded Dowis from maintaining his tort action in Georgia. In so doing, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that this Court has addressed the issue of the viability of the rule of lex loci delicti and has continued to apply it. Sargent Indus., Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, 251 Ga. 91 (303 SE2d 108) (1983); see also Mullins v. M.G.D. Graphics Systems Group, 867 F.Supp. 1578 (N.D.Ga.,1994).
There are several principle approaches to the resolution of conflict of laws issues in tort cases. 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 124. The traditional approach, frequently referred to as the "vested rights" approach was set forth in the Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws and established the rule of lex loci delicti. See ATLA-TORT § 3:21. Under this traditional rule, a tort action is governed by the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 266 Ga. App. 540, 541 (n.4) (597 SE2d 430) (2004). Subsequently, due in part to an attempt to accommodate the increased mobility of the population and interstate and international commerce, other approaches emerged which were perceived to be less territorial. Hataway v. McKinley, 830 S.W. 2d 53, 57 (Tenn., 1992). These approaches have gained acceptance in deciding which state's substantive law should apply. 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 124. The first such approach is based upon a concept of "governmental interest." Id. This approach, developed by Professor Brainerd Currie, involves an analysis of the respective interests of the involved states to determine the law that most appropriately applies to the issues in the case; controlling effect is given to the law of the jurisdiction which has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation, unless a public policy exception dictates a contrary result. 16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 129; See Brainerd Currie, The Disinterested Third State, 28 Law and Contemporary Problems 754 (1963). Specifically, this theory mandates that a court first identify the specific law in each state bearing upon the legal issue in dispute, then determine the precise policies which the respective laws were designed to serve, and finally, that the court examine the relationship of each jurisdiction with the l
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|