Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
A surfer from State A brought a diversity action against a hairdresser from State B in State B federal court. The surfer's single-count complaint sought damages for injuries he suffered from a car accident in State C when he was a passenger in the hairdresser's automobile. State C's guest statute provides a valid defense to the surfer's claim but neither State A nor State B has a guest statute.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is situated (State B), not the choice-of-law rules of the plaintiff's state (State A).
C is incorrect. A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is situated (State B), not the choice-of-law rules of the place of accident (State C).
D is incorrect. A federal court sitting in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is situated (State B), not federal choice-of-law rules.