holding that the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship.
How later courts described this case
- holding that the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship.
- “The question of negligence ... should be determined by the law of the state where the tort occurs because that is the state with the dominant interest concerning that issue.... ”
- adopting the "most significant relationship test” for determining the law to be applied in tort cases in Missouri
- abandoning the lex loci delicti rule in favor of the proposed Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 145
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Dorris v. McClanahan, 1987 Mo. LEXIS 283 (1987)
Because the Missouri legislature preempts an analysis of 2d Restatement significant contacts in this case, Kennedy is inapplicable.
The opinion
DONNELLY, Judge
(concurring in result) .
I would not abandon the certainty of the lex loci delicti rule at this time, but, in this particular fact situation, would hold that enforcement of the Indiana Guest Statute in Missouri is against public policy. See Ehrenzweig, “A Counter-Revolution in Conflicts Law? From Beale to Cavers,” 80 Harvard Law Review, 377, 399, 400 (1966).
I concur in result.