Washington Law Review


In an article published in 1951, a well-known English authority on conflict of laws remarked, "To a foreign observer, it seems extraordinary that there should be so much uncertainty in the United States as to what law governs the validity of a contract, and so much uncritical acceptance of the rule that tort liability is governed by the law of the place of wrong."' The writer was referring, of course, to the rule embodied in the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, according to which the place of the wrong is that place where the tortious conduct of the defendant has its impact on the injured person or property The Restatement rule is undoubtedly supported by most respectable authority. It is also the rule which has been the most often resorted to by American courts when they have had occasion to deal with "foreign torts." However, any open minded observer would be compelled to concede that its strict application has at times brought about somewhat strange results.

First Page