Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Louisiana law governed a negligence action by a California corporation against a Louisiana corporation, alleging loss caused by injury to plaintiff’s employee, a loss that is cognizable under California law but not under Louisiana law
• finding that interest of Louisiana in applying law that would bar recovery for Californian employee injured there served “Louisiana’s policy of avoidance of extended financial hardship to the negligent defendant”
• reasoning that a court should look to “the function and purpose of th[e] laws”
• applying Louisiana law foreclosing employer’s cause of action for negligent injury to key employee
• referring to the “situs of the injury” 13 as a “relevant consideration”
• “Questions of choice of law are determined in California, as plaintiff correctly contends, by the ‘governmental interest analysis’ rather than by the trial court’s ‘most significant contacts theory’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).