context: Plaintiffs' sole basis for arguing that Connecticut law should govern is that Pfizer performed research and development with respect to Trovan and planned the Nigerian experiment in Connecticut. (Transcript of Oral Argument, dated Oct. 21, 2005, at 17-21.) However, this sole contact with Connecticut is insufficient to defeat the Nigerian interest in applying its own laws.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because "plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant's principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut", and the "handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut"
citation_a.sentence: See Feldt v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05 (D.Conn.1989) (holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because “plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant’s principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut”, and the “handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut”); see also N. Tankers Ltd., 934 F.Supp. at 39-40 (“[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary,” or “produce an arbitrary or irrational result” because “[t]he place of the injury ... is New York,” and “alleged damages ... were incurred in New York.”); Icelandic Coast, 722 F.Supp. at 948.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 934 F.Supp. 39, 39-40
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary," or "produce an arbitrary or irrational result" because "[t]he place of the injury ... is New York," and "alleged damages ... were incurred in New York."
citation_b.sentence: See Feldt v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 721 F.Supp. 403, 404-05 (D.Conn.1989) (holding that under lex loci delecti, Georgia law applies because “plaintiffs live[d] in Georgia, the gun in question was kept in Georgia, and the injury occurred in Georgia, even though the defendant’s principal place of business was Southport, Connecticut”, and the “handgun in question was manufactured by the defendant in Connecticut”); see also N. Tankers Ltd., 934 F.Supp. at 39-40 (“[Application of New York law here would be neither irrational nor arbitrary,” or “produce an arbitrary or irrational result” because “[t]he place of the injury ... is New York,” and “alleged damages ... were incurred in New York.”); Icelandic Coast, 722 F.Supp. at 948.