in question ... [is a] question! ] of state law.”); Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 948 F.2d 117, 122 (2d Cir.1991) (“the measure of damages is a matter of state substantive law”); Carota v. Johns Manville Corp., 893 F.2d 448, 450 (1st Cir.1990) (“The law of damages ... is substantive since it prescribes what, if any, money a plaintiff will receive as compensation for injury. Damages are an element of plaintiffs case.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Ill., 701 F.2d 1189, 1194 (7th Cir.1983) (“[T]he state’s view of the measure of damages, which is inseparable from the substantive right of action, ... binds a federal court sitting in diversity.”); cf. Garcia & Maggini Co. v. Washington Dehydrated Food Co., 294 F. 765, 767 (9th Cir.1924) (<HOLDING>). Our holding today, that the Oregon Oil Spill
holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling holding in the conflict of laws context that district courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the forum state holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure