Abstract
In an article published in the Duke Law Journal in June of 1972, Professor Kozyris proposed a choice of law system for no-fault which would resolve in a novel way the confusion engendered by disparate state approaches to the problems of compensation and liability for injuries resulting from automobile accidents, by tying the extent and nature of both the victim's recovery and the driver's liability to the respective laws of their states of domicil-regardless of the place of the accident. During the period subsequent to the publication of that article, the proposed "federal standard" no-fault bill has been modified to reflect substantial deference to the domiciliary concept in its choice of law provisions, while the various state plans adopted have continued to reflect a notable preference for a territorialist approach. In this article, Professor Kozyris favorably analyzes the choice of law provisions of the proposed federal bill. In a less encouraging vein, his demonstration of the anomalous results generated by the territorialism of some of the recently enacted state plans suggests that a rational and consistent choice of law scheme for the interstate automobile accident may be a long way off if the federal bill is not enacted.
Citation
P. John Kozyris,
No-Fault Insurance and the Conflict of Laws—An Interim Update,
1973 Duke Law Journal
1009-1034
(1973)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol22/iss5/3