In addition, the ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied here, listed as a factor in § 6(2)(g) is of small concern. While the Court may be more familiar with the comparative negligence standard as applied in Pennsylvania, the contributory negligence doctrine, as applied in Maryland, offers no great challenge to the intellects of the Court or jury in this case.
In light of these three factors it is clear that the little weight should be given to the contacts with the State of Maryland. The fact that the accident occurred there is simply the result of random chance and offers little if any real connection of that state with the conflict between these parties.
The remaining considerations of § 6 focus on the tort law policies of the states involved. The basic policies underlying tort law are to provide compensation for the injured victims, and to deter intentional and deliberate tortious conduct by imposing punitive damages. Prosser and Keaton on Torts, § 2 (5th Ed. 1984).
This conclusion leads, naturally, to the concern of the policies of the forum and other interested states as set forth in § 6(2)(b, c).
The basic tort law of a state is designed to protect the rights of the individuals who are residents or citizens of that state. Although the accident occurred in Maryland, none of the parties is a resident of that state. Thus, Maryland has little interest in the outcome of this suit. The states which do have a legitimate interest in this matter are Pennsylvania and North Carolina. These states have natural policy interests in protecting the rights of their citizens. The states where plaintiffs and defendants reside have a strong interest in making the plaintiff whole and deterring wrongful conduct. See Griffith v. United Airlines, 416 Pa. at 23-24. Therefore, the considerations provided in § 6 of the Restatement (Second) indicate that the states in which the parties reside carries the greatest weight of the four contracts enumerated in § 145(2) Restatement (Second).
Although neither party has raised the issue of the applicability of North Carolina's substantive tort law the Restatement (Second) analysis now dictates that I consider it. As it turns out North Carolina, as Maryland, applies the doctrine of contributory negligence in tort cases. See Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 364 S.E.2d 392 (1988). The policies of North Carolina and Pennsylvania with regard to negligence by a plaintiff which contributes to his injury are dramatically opposed. Pennsylvania's policy is to allow recovery so long as a plaintiff's negligence does not amount to more than 50% of the cause his injury. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7102. Whereas North Carolina's doctrine states that a plaintiff is entitled to no recovery if his negligent acts in any way led to his injury. See Murrow.
I conclude that Pennsylvania's interest in allowing recovery for plaintiff's as its citizen, in this case, is roughly equal to that of North Carolina's interest in protecting its citizens from a suit by a plaintiff who was contributorily negligent.
I turn now to the Currie governmental interest analysis to resolve this standoff conflict.
2. The interest analysis.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dictated that along with consideration of the Restatement (Second) analysis, an "interest analysis" approach be employed. This approach is often associated with Professor Brainerd Currie who was its leading advocate. This approach to the problem focuses on the interests of the governments whose laws are in conflict. The interest analysis as applied in Griffith was presented by Professor Currie in Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, 177, 183-84 (1963):
1. Normally, even in cases involving foreign elements, the court should be expected, as a matter of course, to apply the rule of decision found in the law of the forum.