## Facts

- Ruby D. Erwin, domiciled in Washington, sued in Oregon for loss of consortium arising from injuries to her husband.
- The husband (also a Washington domiciliary) was allegedly injured in Washington in a truck accident.
- Wilbur E. Thomas, the truck driver, was domiciled in Oregon and was acting within the scope of employment for Shepler Refrigeration, Inc., an Oregon corporation.
- Washington law did not recognize a wife’s cause of action for loss of consortium at the time; Oregon law recognized such a claim by statute (ORS 108.010).
- The suit was filed in Oregon against Oregon defendants based on the Washington accident.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon or Washington law governs a wife’s loss-of-consortium claim when the accident occurred in Washington and the spouses are Washington domiciliaries, but the defendants are Oregon domiciliaries and the action is brought in Oregon.
2. Whether, in a tort case presenting an “unprovided-for” or “false conflict,” the forum should apply forum law when no involved state has a legitimate governmental interest in applying its competing rule.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer and remanded.
- The court held Oregon law applied, permitting the wife’s loss-of-consortium claim to proceed under ORS 108.010.
- The court concluded the case presented no real conflict of governmental interests warranting displacement of forum law.
- A dissent argued there was a genuine policy conflict and objected to extending Oregon statutory rights to nonresident plaintiffs for out-of-state injuries.

## Legal Principles

- Before performing a choice-of-law selection, a court should determine whether there is a “conflict of consequence” (a real conflict), as opposed to a false conflict requiring no choice.
- In tort cases, when policies and governmental interests show no state has a legitimate interest in applying its contrary rule, the forum may apply its own law.
- Interest analysis can resolve certain disputes without resort to the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” test when there is no real policy clash to mediate.

## Conclusion

The court applied Oregon law to allow a Washington wife’s consortium claim against Oregon defendants for a Washington accident, reasoning that neither Oregon nor Washington had a legitimate governmental interest requiring application of Washington’s no-remedy rule over forum law.


Erwin v. Thomas, 264 Or. 454, 506 P.2d 494 (Or. 1973)