Pacific Diamond Co. v. Superior Court

This case comes before us on a petition for a writ of mandate brought by the plaintiff in the court below. The Supreme Court granted an alternative writ and then transferred the cause to this court.

The facts, for purposes of this writ, were stipulated to at the trial court. They are as follows:

Ultimately, the trial court held as follows:

Petitioner contends in this proceeding that either

Thus, petitioner argues, it is entitled to proceed to trial on a cause of action for the full amount of its provable loss and damages.

I. Which is the proper substantive law to apply—California or Colorado?

It seems reasonably clear under California law that where a choice of law question arises, the determination is made by applying a governmental interest analysis. (Reich v. Purcell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 551 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 432 P.2d 727 ]; Hurtado v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 106 , 522 P.2d 666 ]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215 , 546 P.2d 719 ]; Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 157 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 583 P.2d 721 ].)

Since the statutes of 1895, California has limited the liability of…