About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/reconlw0164 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations CONFLICT OF LAWS Generally Kan.App.2024. Cit. generally in disc. Estate of a Kansas resident who had opened accounts with bank when he lived in Utah sued bank, alleging that it wrongfully dispersed funds from decedent's accounts to a person who presented a fraudulent Utah affidavit of collection of estate assets to a branch of bank in California. The trial court granted bank's motion to dismiss, finding that the account agreements contained choice-of-law clauses requiring the application of Utah law, which absolved bank of liability. This court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in considering documents outside the complaint and remanded with directions regarding the trial court's choice-of-law analysis. The court noted that, under Kansas choice-of-law rules, which followed the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, Kansas law was presumed to apply, as the law of the state where the action was filed, and bank had the burden of proving that Utah law applied, by showing that there was a meaningful conflict between Kansas and Utah law, and that the facts supported a claim that Utah law should govern. Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 551 P.3d 142, 153. INTRODUCTION Mich.2023. Intro. cit. in case cit. in ftn. to diss. op. In combined premises-liability cases, this court held that, under Restatement Second of Torts §§ 343 and 343A, the open-and-obvious nature of a condition was relevant to a party's breach and the parties' comparative fault, rather than to a party's duty, and that a possessor of land was not relieved of the duty of reasonable care to an invitee when the possessor should have anticipated the harm that resulted from an open-and-obvious condition, despite its obviousness. A dissent argued that the majority's interpretation of §§ 343 and 343A was nearly the same as the approach set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, which had not been adopted by Michigan and was inconsistent with Michigan common law, and that it was for the Michigan Supreme Court to decide the future of Michigan common law, rather than the Restatements, which, according to the Introduction to the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, was merely to present an orderly statement of the general common law. Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 1 N.W.3d 44, 76. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.