Abstract
I am grateful to the editors of the Mercer Law Review for the opportunity to comment upon the symposium honoring Brainerd Currie. As one would expect given the fine panel assembled, the discussions were lively, well-informed, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. And, of course, it is well to honor Currie, who was perhaps the father - at the very least the midwife - of the conflicts revolution.
There is no denying that Currie's "interest" vocabulary helped American courts escape the grip of the place-of-the-injury rule in tort conflict cases. His tripartite division between true conflicts, false conflicts, and unprovided-for cases is orthodoxy to most American conflicts academics and many courts. The influence of interest analysis with courts is undeniably broad in tort cases, though less so in other areas. Although I find myself in strong disagreement with Currie and his followers on many points, he helped usher in an era of fairer results, particularly for interstate tort victims.
What, then, could one possibly find to disagree with in a theory that was the product of the labors of a brilliant, moderate man and has produced fairer results than its predecessor? Well, at least in my case, the answer is "quite a lot."