Frank Adams is a resident and domiciliary of London, England. While operating his automobile on holiday in Germany, he has a collision with a large truck operated by Grisham Brothers Hauling of Belgium. The driver of the truck is a Grisham employee resident and domiciled in Germany. Grisham Brothers does business throughout the European Union. After his release from a Frankfurt hospital, Frank Adams returns to London and commences legal proceedings in the High Court of England & Wales against Grisham Brothers.

Grisham Brothers applies to have the matter dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction. This is denied by the Court.

In his lawsuit, Adams contends that Grisham Brothers was negligent because the truck that caused the accident was known to be unsafe as it had failed the safety test administered by the Belgian Motor Vehicle Authority and, as a consequence, the truck was neither registered nor insured. The brakes were found to be defective during the Belgian inspection and Grisham Brothers failed to remedy the situation at its garage in Brussels and instead sent the truck on a journey into Germany where the defective brakes failed causing the accident.

23. Which of the following is the best statement of likely choice of law in the High Court proceeding:

A.

Belgium because it is the place of the tort - place of the negligent maintenance and repair of the vehicle.

B.

England because it is the domicile of the plaintiff and defendant Grisham Brothers does business in England.

C.

Germany because it is the place of the tort - it is where the accident happened.

D.

Germany because it is the place where the injury was suffered.

E.

Germany because it is the domicile of the negligent driver.

F.

Belgium because it is the domicile of Grisham Brothers.

Q) If the High Court in London decides that the law of a state other than the UK governs (which we will call the Second State):

A.

The English court will need to decide what law the Second State would apply.

B.

If Second State would apply law of Third State (assuming not England), then the English court would look to what law Third State would apply

C.

English Court, if it selected Belgian or German law would look to see what law those countries would apply but nothing beyond that - single renvoi.

D.

English Court would simply apply the substantive law of Second State because there is no renvoi in interest analysis.

E.

English Court would apply substantive law of Second State without renvoi based on the Rome II regulation.

F.

If Second State is outside of the EU, the Rome II choice of law rules do not apply.