The firm is defending a claim involving an alleged, significant closed-head injury to a minor, while on the client’s premises during a winter retreat located in Wisconsin. CLG recently prevailed on a highly -ontested motion to apply to the foreign law of Wisconsin to the suit filed in Lake County, Illinois and on behalf of its client. When the laws of two different states conflict such that the difference between the relevant laws will affect the outcome of the case, choice of law analysis is required. In this particular case, the firm argued that Illinois and Wisconsin statutes would lead to disparate outcomes, with Wisconsin law leading to immunity under the Wisconsin Recreational Immunity statute. Once a conflict in laws is identified, the Court applies Illinois’ choice of law principles in making the determination of which state’s law applies. Illinois uses the “most significant relationship” approach to resolve choice of law issues. The firm argued in its motion that it is generally the law of the place where the injury occurred – in a tort action – which controls, unless some other jurisdiction has a more significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties, and relied on the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws (“the Restatement”), § 6 and § 145. After the motion was argued by attorney Joshe Edelson, the Court agreed with the firm on all points and issued a written order granting CLG-client’s Motion to Apply Foreign Law so that Wisconsin’s recreational immunity will apply to the case.
