...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Air Law and Commerce >SISYPHUS, THE BOULDER, AND THE CHOICE-OF-LAW HILL: THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING THE UNUSUAL AND COMPLEX CHOICE-OF-LAW ISSUES THAT CAN ARISE WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY IN AN AVIATION CASE
【24h】

SISYPHUS, THE BOULDER, AND THE CHOICE-OF-LAW HILL: THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING THE UNUSUAL AND COMPLEX CHOICE-OF-LAW ISSUES THAT CAN ARISE WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY IN AN AVIATION CASE

机译:SISYPHUS,BOULDER和CHOICE-HOLA HILL:解决美国在航空业中成为当事方时可能会出现的不寻常和复杂的CHOICE-OF的分析框架

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The inclusion of the United States as a defendant in an aviation case can greatly complicate the choice-of-law issues. These issues will be straightforward, or at least no more complex than with private defendants, when the forum is also the place where the government's negligence is alleged to have occurred. When the government's negligence occurred outside the forum, counsel for plaintiff should be aware that the choice-of-law rules applicable to the United States are those of the state where the negligence took place, not those of the forum state. In a multiparty action involving allegations of government negligence outside the forum, there is the potential for a different choice-of-law approach to apply to the claims against the United States than the approach that applies to the claims against the private defendants, a more likely occurrence these days as states increasingly create their own approaches by blending various methodologies. Another layer of complexity is added when the governmental negligence occurred in more than one jurisdiction. If the pertinent jurisdictions' choice-of-law rules do not conflict, then the court need not select between competing choice-of-law rules as to the claims against the United States. If the potentially applicable substantive laws do not conflict, then the court need not even apply those choice-of-law rules. But if the choice-of-law rules and the substantive laws conflict, then a court could follow any one of the numerous approaches that have been tried to resolve the problem of which jurisdiction's choice-of-law rules to select and apply to the claims against the United States.
机译:在航空案件中将美国包括为被告,可能会使选择法律的问题大大复杂化。这些问题将是直截了当的,或者至少不比私人被告复杂,届时该论坛也​​是据称发生了政府疏忽的地方。当政府的疏忽发生在论坛之外时,原告律师应了解,适用于美国的法律选择规则是发生疏忽的州的法律选择规则,而不是论坛所在州的法律选择规则。在涉及政府在论坛外的过失指控的多党诉讼中,与针对私人被告的索赔相比,适用于针对美国的索赔的法律选择方法可能会有所不同,随着国家越来越多地通过混合各种方法来创建自己的方法,这些天很可能会发生。当政府的疏忽发生在多个地区时,又增加了另一层复杂性。如果相关司法管辖区的法律选择规则不冲突,则法院无需针对针对美国的索赔在竞争的法律选择规则之间进行选择。如果潜在适用的实体法不冲突,则法院甚至无需应用这些法律选择规则。但是,如果法律选择规则与实体法发生冲突,那么法院可以采用尝试解决哪个司法管辖区的法律选择规则以选择并适用于权利要求的问题的众多方法中的任何一种。反对美国。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号