If parties are domiciled in different states and the defendant's conduct occurred in the defendant's domicile and that state would not impose liability, what is generally true?

• A. The plaintiff's domicile law will apply.
• B. The defendant will generally be liable under the victim's domicile.
• C. The defendant should generally be free from liability.
• D. The federal government will intervene.

Answer: (C)

In tort conflicts of law, the place where the wrong occurred typically governs liability. Here, the conduct happened in the defendant’s domicile, so the law of that state would generally control whether liability exists. If that state’s law would not impose liability for the asserted conduct, then the defendant would not be liable, even though the parties are domiciled in different states. The plaintiff’s domicile law would apply only if the controlling rule pointed to that state, which isn’t the case here. The federal government doesn’t step in to resolve private tort conflicts of laws. So the outcome is that the defendant should generally be free from liability.