The Louisiana choice of law code is an important effort to codify the best of modem conflicts understanding. I routinely teach it to my conflicts students even though few will practice in Louisiana. I think it quite possible that someday states that have followed more ad hoc judicial codifications may consider adopting the more systematic codification found in Louisiana.
The code's choice of law articles on torts incorporate a distinction, first developed in New York, between tort rules that are conduct-regulating and those that are loss-allocating. This rule is built around the premise that there are two fundamental purposes of tort law--deterrence and compensation-and that all tort rules can meaningfully be classified as serving one of those two purposes. For example, the drafters of the code expected that rules such as caps on damages or immunity from suit would be treated as loss-allocating and rules such as "rules of the road" would be treated as conduct regulating.
In this paper, I disagree with the premise that all tort rules can be meaningfully classified as either compensatory or deterrent. I argue that most tort rules are both and that "the compensation and deterrence goals ascribed to the tort system cannot be separated. " I then explore the impact on the Louisiana tort choice of law code of this alternative understanding of tort law.
Wendy Collins Perdue, A Reexamination of the Distinction Between “Loss-Allocating” and “Conduct-Regulating” Rules, 60 La. L. Rev. 1251 (2000)