the following broad choice-of-law policy considerations: “(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states . . . , (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.” Restatement § 6(2). 20 Restatement § 145 cmt. a. 21 Restatement § 148. 22 101 Wn.2d 200, 676 P.2d 477 (1984). 23 Id. at 205. 24 Id. at 204. 25 Id. 26 109 Wn.2d 107, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987). 27 Id. at 135. 28 Id. at 134. 29 Id. 30 See, e.g., Bank of Am., NA v. Prestance Corp., 160 Wn.2d 560, 576 n.11, 160 P.3d 17 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Niemann v. Vaughn Cmty. Church, 154 Wn.2d
recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977 holding that duty existed as a matter of public policy independent of the restatement recognizing restatement second of torts  428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard recognizing cases where courts have considered the restatement approach as persuasive but declined to clearly articulate a rule adopting the restatement approach regarding restatement third of property mortgages  76 1997 recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e