# Milkovich v. Saari

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · January 5, 1973 · 295 Minn. 155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698369

## Case

- **Full name:** Anne L. Milkovich v. Erma Saari and Another
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** January 5, 1973
- **Citations:** 295 Minn. 155; 203 N.W.2d 408; 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1278
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Peterson
- **Judges:** Todd, Peterson, Otis
- **Cited by:** 133 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698369. Public record. Not legal advice.