holding that, in the context of civil tort actions, Minnesota courts will look to the “better rule of law” rather than lex loci, the law of the place
How later courts described this case
- holding that, in the context of civil tort actions, Minnesota courts will look to the “better rule of law” rather than lex loci, the law of the place
- listing the five factors to be considered when choosing the applicable law as: (1) predictability of' results, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests, (4) application of the better rule of law, and (5) simplification of the judicial task
- outlining five choice-of-law factors: predictability of result, maintenance of interstate order, simplification of the judicial task, advancement of the forum’s governmental interest, and the better rule of law
- pointing out that only the last two elements of the five-point methodology for resolving conflict questions are relevant to tort cases
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Peterson, Justice
(dissenting).
The “center-of-gravity-of-the contacts” theory of conflict of laws has been adopted in this state, and we have applied it in situations where an automobile trip started and was intended to terminate in this state, where the host-guest relationship was formed in this state, or where the place of registration or garaging of the automobile was in this state. Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N. W. 2d 66 (1966); Kopp v. Rechtzigel, 273 Minn. 441 , 141 N. W. 2d 526 (1966); Schneider v. Nichols, 280 Minn. 139 , 158 N. W. 2d 254 (1968); Bolgrean v. Stich, 293 Minn. 8 , 196 N. W. 2d 442 (1972); Allen v. Gannaway, 294 Minn. 1 , 199 N. W. 2d 424 (1972). Until today, however, we have not considered the mere happening of an automobile accident in this state a sufficient contact with the forum to establish the center of gravity here. In my view, the center of gravity is in Ontario, not Minnesota.
*172 The “choice-influencing factor” in the majority opinion is simply that Minnesota law is “better law” because, unlike Ontario law, this state has no guest statute. Notwithstanding our undoubted preference for this forum’s standard of liability, I am not persuaded that decision should turn on that factor alone. We may assume that these Canadian citizens have concurred in the rule of law of their own government as just, so the law of this American forum is not for them the “better” standard of justice. The litigation, indeed, was first initiated by plaintiff in the courts of Ontario and was later commenced in Minnesota as an act of forum shopping.
Our own cases, of course, do not compel such a decision. Two cases from other jurisdictions that are “on all fours” are not persuasive. The New York case of Kell v. Henderson, 47 Misc. 2d 992 , 263 N. Y. S. 2d 647 (1965), affirmed, 26 App. Div. 2d 595, 270 N. Y. S. 2d 552 (1966), is not the decision of that state’s highest court and, in addition, is at odds with the later case of Arbuthnot v. Allbright, 35 App. Div. 2d 315, 316 N. Y. S. 2d 391 (1970). The Wisconsin case of Conklin v. Horner, 38 Wis. 2d 468 , 157 N. W. 2d 579 (1968), is a final expression of its highest court, based upon a well-written majority opinion of Mr. Justice Heffernan. I nevertheless am more persuaded by the dissenting opinion of two justices. Mr. Chief Justice Hallows, in dissent, appropriately observed that the so-called “methodology of analysis” is really little more than a mechanical application of the law of the forum. As he wrote ( 38 Wis. 2d 491 , 157 N. W. 2d 590 ): “If we are going to be consistent only in applying the law of the forum, then we are merely giving lip service to the new ‘significant contacts’ rule.”
Mr. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.