Obviously the correct answer is “it depends on the substantive tort law of Fredonia and the application of its choice of law rules.” Just to be clear.
My view is that yes, they should be SOL, at least insofar as they want to sue Crazy Carl (they obviously have a claim against Joe Crackhead, though I suspect he’s judgment-proof).
A real-world example: dram shop cases. Most states do not apply their dram shop laws (laws which impose liability on bars for overserving their patrons) extraterritorially – a bar in state A, which has no dram shop law, will not be held liable for the drunken torts of a patron who drives into state B (which has such a law) who sues in state B. See, e.g., Thoring v. Bottonsek, where North Dakota refuses to apply its dram shop law to a Montana tavern that overserved a customer who subsequently caused an auto accident in North Dakota (Montana had no dram shop law).
That is, in my view, correct. The decision to impose liability on taverns for the torts of their drunken customers is one of state policy – some states take the view that patrons should be solely responsible for their own alcohol intake, and others think more expansive liability is more just. Fine. But for one state to impose such liability on a tavern in another state is tantamount to imposing certain policy choices on the second state. That is not appropriate.
Bwahahahahahaha! You have fallen into my trap, for I have read every single dramshop case ever published by a court since the dawn of the 20th century!
Hey, it was a law review thing.
In any event, I call shenanigans on your claim that “most states do not apply their own dram shop laws . . . extraterritorially.” Compare Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc., 534 A.2d 1268, 1270-71 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (law of D.C., where service occurred, allowed dramshop action even though accident occurred in Maryland, where service occurred) with Ling v. Jan’s Liquors, 703 P.2d 731, 735-39 (Kan. 1985) (law of Kansas, where accident occurred, barred a dramshop suit against Missouri dramshop that sold booze to minor tortfeasor).
I’d also point out that damn few states have no dramshop liability. Last time I counted, 44 states and the District of Columbia impose some form of liability for negligent provision of alchoholic beverages. Also, while Montana did not have a dramshop law in effect in 1984, it has a standard dramshop act in place today. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 16-6-305, 27-1-710 (creating liability for provision to minors and intoxicated persons, as well as for forced intoxication and misrepresentation of alcoholic content).
TeeHee, this reminds me of a ludicrous charade from WWII.
Warning - the has nothing to do with the argument but is an historical quirk related to minty green’s question.
In early WWII exactly this happened and was winked at by the federal government.
After the fall of France and before the Neutrality Act was superseded, manufacturers flew airplanes to hastily built strips right on the Canadian border in North Dakota and Montana. Then a tow line was fastened to them, tossed over the border (yes, actually tossed) and they were towed across into Canada and then ferried to England.
Newsreels of the day showed it happening but federal officials were too busy to notice and nothing was done.
P.S. - For you youngsters, a newsreel was a 10 minute news film that showed along with the other pre-feature short subjects.
I admit I’m operating with one hand tied behind my back – state case law research is hit or miss using Google, and I have access to neither Lexis nor Westlaw for primary research nor Shepard’s to test the validity of the cases I do run across. I would like to read the ALR cited in the case (wink, wink, nudge nudge).
But reading the cases cited in the North Dakota decision I cited above, it seems pretty clear that there’s a split on enforcing the dram shop laws of the state of sale extraterritorially, and (more to the point for this example) that applying a dram shop law extraterritorially to the state of injury is decidedly more unusual. As the court notes, the few cases where actions against a tavern in a state without a dram shop law have succeeded have been on premised on a general negligence theory rather than the extraterritorial extension of the state of injury’s dram shop law, and in at least one of those cases the tavern’s home state has refused to extend full faith and credit to the judgment on precisely the coequal soveriegn grounds we’re discussing here.
This actually makes a great deal of sense. Suppose you are deciding whether or not you want to open a tavern. One of your considerations is the potential for liability.
If you live in a state with a dram shop law, you will factor that risk into your decision – you are aware of the law, know you must comply with it, and are aware of the risks of failing to do so. You will not be shocked or surprised that you are liable for your customers, and the mere fact that one of them manages to scurry across the border before getting into an accident does not alter your risk analysis. Holding you liable in that case is justifiable.
On the other hand, if you live in a state without a dram shop law, you open your tavern on the assumption that you do not have that liability. Your expectations are different. You shouldn’t be liable just because some neighboring state takes a differing view of things.**
Actually, this illustrates the difference I’m referring to. Your hypothetical is more like the second case – the state of injury is trying to use its dram shop law against a tavern in a state without such a law. **
All of which is interesting, but wholly irrelevant. Perhaps one day Libertaria will reinstate its crack prohibition. That doesn’t change the analysis on your Libertaria hypothetical today.
I am saying that the decision by the NAACP to have a position, any postion on an inflammitory subject like gun control is a bad idea. This isn’t pointless sniping. It’s a legitimate statement.
I didn’t hear about it. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you making the claim that more blacks are for gun control than whites? Do you have any cite for this?
Even if this is the case, is this the role of the NAACP. Not advancing colored people at all, simply advancing any agenda that most colored people agree with? Most blacks are democrats. Should they be involved only with democrat politicians or would they be better served by working with both sides of the poliltcal spectrum?
Of course, having more gun control will ultimately result in more gun deaths. On this, I am certain we will never agree.
Ya. Who cares what a bunch of wackjobs think that support the second ammendment. It’s only more than half of the country.
Besides, if somebody at the NAACP gets the idea that it would advance colored people to have only hydrogen fuel cell cars why don’t they take on the oil industry. And maybe it would be best for black people if we had socialized medicine so they should take on the HMO’s too.
Can’t you see that after a while of this, they will piss off not only the 87% of the country that isn’t black but a good portion of the 13% that are?
Where on earth are you getting this ridiculous notion that everyone who isn’t black is a supporter of gun rights? Taking a pro-gun control position does NOT “piss off the 87% of the country that isn’t black.”
I specifically said in my post that “more than half the country” supports gun rights. Not 87%. Not only non-blacks.
Please cite where I said that taking a pro-gun control position pisses off the 87% of the country that isn’t black.
As far as I can tell, you just made it up.
My position in a nutshell, for the third or so time, is that the NAACP taking positions on any issues not directly related to black americans will only result in alienating blacks and non-blacks alike.
Don’t you think it kind of willfully ignorant to pretend that fossil fuel cunsumption is as big an issue to the black community as street violence?
Does everyone who supports the second ammendment support all gun manufacturer practices?
On a personal note, I don’t like a civil court end-run around criminal cases. If the manufacturers are willfully supplying the blackmarket then there should be criminal charges of some sort. It’s unfair IMO to use the lower threshhold of proof needed in civil cases. Of course, IANAL.
However, I do think that some black people consider fossil fuel consumption a bigger issue than street violence. So what? My point is that by taking positions on issues that aren’t based on race, the NAACP only alienates potential supporters.
It is clear that I am talking about the NAACP taking any position on any issue that isn’t directly related to black people. After a while of this (taking on issues that are off topic) they will alienate blacks and non-blacks alike.
I specifically mention two issues as examples that aren’t gun control and you somehow read me to be writing about gun control? :wally
See, this is what happens when lack of time time compels me to limit myself to the obviously silly statements instead of the interesting hijacks. Sorry, I will try to get back to it later. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your characterization of extraterritoriality.
You seem to have completely missed my point: I was giving examples of silly loopholes, and saying that just because there are examples of where someone is technically outside a state’s jurisdiction but they can still be charged, that doesn’t mean that it’s open season on legislating the actions of other state’s residents. Your examples involve a situation where a specific in event in state A is a direct result of actions in state B, and you are trying to expand that to a case where negligent actions in state B indirectly lead to the event in state A. I am willing to concede that there are cases where an action performed in one state can fall under the jurisdiction of another if they lead to injury in another state. Are you willing to concede that there are cases where this is not the case? Or is “rational interest” synonymous in your mind with “jurisdiction”?
I’m actually quite stunned that you would make this assertion, especially after the numerous threads about BfC when it came out. Moore’s “interview” with Mr. Heston was a contrived ambush by Moore and there were numerous cites to support it. Mr. Heston’s roll in the NRA came about because of his staunch support of civil rights, including marching with Dr. King in the 60’s when it was definitely not the “in” thing to do in Hollywood.
Here’s Spinsanity’s analysis of some of the many distortions and contradictions in BFC. (BTW this site is written by three lefties, although they do a pretty good job of providing balanced criticism.)
Even if Moore’s accusations are true and he did manage to trick Heston into saying this phrase that he is accused of
This statement taken by Moore has what in common with my statement exactly?
Since this is the third or so time in this thread that You have been asked for an explination of what these two statements have in common, I expect an answer.
You accusations that Charlton Heston is a racist are laughable. He was championing civil rights long before it was the fashionable thing to do.
Since the Moore documentary quoting Heston is so well debunked by many sources, I can see why you were being so vague about it. If knew it wouldn’t stand up you shouldn’t have brought it up at all.