Case Study: West Kansas V. East Kansas

Plaintiff, Pat Employee, submits the following Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
This Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because this Court should apply the law of East Kansas. This case involves a conflict of law issue because West Kansas’s law provides that worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for employees, who are victims of intentional torts, while East Kansas says that worker’s compensation is not the exclusive remedy. Under the governmental interest approach to conflicts of law, this Court should resolve this conflict in favor of East Kansas because it has an interest in applying its law, while West Kansas does not.
II. ARGUMENT
As a preliminary
First, East Kansas has an interest in deterring wrongful conduct within its borders. When a rule is designed to influence behavior, a state only has an interest when the conduct to be influenced occurs within that state’s borders. According to the East Kansas Supreme Court, East Kansas’s rule is designed to have a “deterrent effect” on “intentional wrongs,” through the “threat of legal liability.” This rationale is one designed to influence behavior. The conduct at hand here is intentional infliction of emotional distress. That infliction occurred in East Kansas, because Lech’s sexual advances, which caused the emotional distress, occurred in East Kansas. Therefore, the behavior to be influenced happened in East Kansas, and so East Kansas has an interest in influencing that behavior. Therefore, East Kansas has an interest in having its law
An after-acquired domicile is one where a person changes their domicile after the events in question are over. Defendants may argue that Employee gained an after-acquired domicile when she to West Kansas for medical treatment. However, this Court should not credit this after-acquired domicile. The California Supreme Court has held that after-acquired domiciles should always be ignored by courts. This Court should adopt that approach. A per se rule ensures both predictability and consistency. It also prevents the possibility of law shopping. Therefore, this Court should adopt a rule that always ignores after-acquired domiciles. If this Court does so, then East Kansas has an interest in apply its rule to ensure adequate compensation for