Please help me IRAC this confusing fact pattern that I created to quiz myself. I need to know that I'm on the right path (short answers)

The highest court of Alabama recently held that a social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated guest, under circumstances creating a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to others, may be held legally responsible to third persons who are injured by the guest. Neighboring Mississippi has no such law. Its highest court recently refused to impose civil liability on a tavern owner whose bartender served drinks to an obviously intoxicated patron.

On New Year's Eve, a party was given in Mississippi by a Mississippi resident who lived just over the state line from Alabama. Guests were invited from both states. When the final glass of champagne had been drunk to welcome in the New Year, all guests were thoroughly and obviously intoxicated. Nevertheless, the hostess urged her guests to have "one more for the road." After the party, Dirk Dumpster, a Mississippi resident, climbed unsteadily into his car to drive home. On the way, he collided in Mississippi with a car driven by Peter Plaintiff, a resident of Alabama. Peter Plaintiff was severely injured.

Peter filed suit in Alabama against the hostess, serving her personally in Alabama.

Assume that Alabama is constitutionally permitted to apply its own law. Examine whether it should do so using each of the following choice-of-law methods: vested rights, interest analysis, center of gravity, better law, and Second Restatement.