KELLY v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc
Filed 7/13/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
KELLY KEARNEY et al., )
)
Plaintiffs and Appellants, )
) S124739
v. )
) Ct.App. 1/2 A101477
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., )
) San Francisco County
Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. 412197
___________ )
Story continue from Part I ………
(1) compensation for survivors, (2) deterrence of conduct and (3) limitation, or lack thereof, upon the damages recoverable. Reich v. Purcell recognizes that all three aspects are primarily local in character. The first aspect, insofar as plaintiffs are concerned, reflects the state's interest in providing for compensation and in determining the distribution of the proceeds, said interest extending only to local decedents and local beneficiaries . . . ; the second, insofar as defendants are concerned, reflects the state's interest in deterring conduct, said interest extending to all persons present within its borders; the third, insofar as defendants are concerned, reflects the state's interest in protecting resident defendants from excessive financial burdens. In making a choice of law, these three aspects of wrongful death must be carefully separated. The key step in this process is delineating the issue to be decided.†(Hurtado, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 584.) This discussion in Hurtado teaches the importance, in applying the governmental interest analysis, of carefully examining what might at first blush appear to be a single subject or rule of law in order to identify the distinct state interests that may underlie separate aspects of the issue in question.
C
Unlike Reich, supra, 67 Cal.2d 551, and Hurtado, supra, 11 Cal.3d 574 -- cases that were found, upon analysis, to present a false conflict -- the case of Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, supra, 16 Cal.3d 313 (hereafter Bernhard) for the first time presented this court with the task of resolving a true conflict pursuant to the governmental interest analysis. In Bernhard, the plaintiff, a California resident, was injured while in California by a drunk driver who allegedly had been served drinks, while intoxicated, at a tavern owned by the defendant (Harrah's Club) that was located in Nevada. The plaintiff sued the defendant in California, contending that the defendant should be held liable because the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence in serving alcohol to an intoxicated patron. When Bernhard was decided, California law authorized a person who was injured by an intoxicated driver to recover damages from a negligent tavern owner under such circumstances (see Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153), but under Nevada law -- although it was a crime to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person -- the courts specifically had ruled that a tavern owner could not be held civilly liable in tort for the injured person's damages. (Hamm v. Carson City Nuggett, Inc. (Nev. 1969) 450 P.2d 358.) The question in Bernhard was whether California or Nevada law should be applied in determining whether the defendant tavern owner should be held liable.
In analyzing the issue, the court in Bernhard first found that the case presented a true conflict. Nevada had an interest in having its decisional rule applied in order to protect its resident tavern owners -- like the defendant in that case -- from being subjected to a form of civil liability that Nevada had declined to impose. At the same time, California also had an interest in applying its contrary rule imposing liability in such circumstances, inasmuch as the rule was intended to protect members of the general public from injuries to persons and property resulting from the excessive use of intoxicating liquor. California had a special interest in applying its law to a California resident -- like the plaintiff in that case -- who was injured by a drunk driver within California. Under these circumstances, the court in Bernhard recognized that it was required to determine â€
