Case Title: Issendorf v. Olson

Citation: 194 N.W.2d 750

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1972-02-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
194 N.W.2d 750 (1972) Clifford ISSENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael OLSON, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. No. 8775. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 8, 1972. *751 Lamb & Schaefer, Moorhead, Minn., and Wegner, Fraase & Cooke, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant. Wattam, Vogel, Vogel & Peterson, Fargo, for defendant and respondent. *752 ERICKSTAD, Judge. The basic issue we are asked to determine in this case is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct a North Dakota jury on the Minnesota law of comparative negligence in a personal injury action brought by a resident of North Dakota who, as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by a resident of this state, received personal injuries in an accident which occurred on a highway in the state of Minnesota. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to so instruct the jury. The action was initiated in Cass County district court by summons and complaint dated June 6, 1968. Note of issue, dated March 10, 1969, signed by counsel for the plaintiff, discloses that issues of law and fact were joined as of June 26, 1968. A motion on the part of the plaintiff to amend his complaint to increase the amount alleged to have been expended for medical expenses, and to add a paragraph to the complaint relative to permanent injuries and damages resulting therefrom, was noticed for hearing May 1, 1969. By order dated September 12, 1969, the Honorable Roy K. Redetzke granted the motion to amend the complaint and set the case over to the next regular term of the district court. By motion dated September 11, 1969, the plaintiff moved to strike paragraph 2 of the defendant's answer, which asserted that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was a guest-passenger riding in the defendant's automobile, and that under the applicable North Dakota Guest Statute the plaintiff was entitled to recover nothing. This motion to strike was also granted by order dated September 12, 1969. The case came on for trial before the Honorable Ralph B. Maxwell, another judge of the district court of Cass County, in November 1969. The trial judge, in instructing the members of the jury, advised them of the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk pleaded by the defendant and their applicability under North Dakota law. He did this over the objection of the plaintiff, who contended that the court should instruct the jury on the basis of the Minnesota statute on comparative negligence which became effective on July 1, 1969, in any action the trial of which commenced after July 1, 1969. It was the plaintiff's contention that the separate defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk as defined in the trial court's instructions were incompatible with the comparative-negligence statute of Minnesota. Ruling on a motion for new trial following the jury's verdict of dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the court denied the motion on the ground that that part of the Minnesota statute which establishes when the law should become effective is remedial only and therefore not binding upon a court of this State. The pertinent Minnesota statute reads: In 1957, before the advent of Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279, 95 A.L.R.2d 1 (1963), a New York court of appeals decision which established the significant-contacts or center-of-gravity rule as the choice-of-law rule to be applied in tort litigation, our court in Pearson v. Erb, 82 N.W.2d 818 (N.D.1957), applied the traditional rule for determining choice of law in tort cases, lex loci delicti, the law of the place where the wrong occurred. In Pearson, this court said: Respect for the judicial doctrine of stare decisis no doubt caused Judge Fuld in Babcock to explain the necessity for a new choice-of-law rule. We quote him: *754 In breaking with the past, Judge Fuld said: The supreme court of Rhode Island in 1968, in discarding the lex loci delicti doctrine for the significant-contact approach, noted that court after court since the late fifties has adopted some aspect of this interest-weighing approach to the choice of law in tort cases. See Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 191 N.E.2d 279, 95 A.L.R.2d 1 (1963); Thompson v. Thompson, 105 N.H. 86, 193 A.2d 439, 96 A.L.R.2d 969 (1963); Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964); Fabricius v. Horgen, 257 Iowa 268, 132 N.W.2d 410 (1965); Long v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 16 N.Y.2d 337, 266 N.Y.S.2d 513, 213 N.E.2d 796 (1965); Kopp v. Rechtzigel, 273 Minn. 441, 141 N.W.2d 526 (1966); Mellk v. Sarahson, 49 N.J. 226, 229 A.2d 625 (1967); Myers v. Gaither, D.C.App., 232 A.2d 577 (1967); Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal. 2d 551, 63 Cal. Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (1967); Casey v. Manson Construction & Engineering Co., 247 Or. 274, 428 P.2d 898 (1968); Woodward v. Stewart, 104 R.I. 290, 243 A.2d 917, 922 (1968). Making a choice-of-law decision depend upon whether the law is substantive or procedural in nature is also an unsatisfactory approach to the determination of the choice of law in tort cases. Pertinent is what the supreme court of Rhode Island said about this approach in Woodward, in discussing the development of the lex loci delicti doctrine. In abandoning the old choice-of-law rule, the Rhode Island court considered the interests that should be weighed in deciding which jurisdiction has the more significant *755 interest with reference to a particular issue and, following Wisconsin and New Hampshire, adopted the guidelines enunciated by Dean Leflar. Dean Leflar's choice-influencing factors are: Leflar, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 267, 282 (1966). In Woodward, in applying the substantive law of Rhode Island to a tort case in which the accident occurred in Massachusetts, the Rhode Island court said: Whether the contributory-negligence rule of the forum or the comparative negligence law of the place of the wrong should apply is an issue similar to that in Woodward, where the question was whether New York's policy as the forum of requiring a tortfeasor to compensate his guest for injuries caused by his negligence or Ontario's restrictive guest law should apply. Most of the interest factors point to the application of North Dakota law. Although we have before us only a partial transcript of the trial court proceedings, we note from the brief filed by the defendant with the trial court on the plaintiff's motion to strike from the answer the defense of the North Dakota Guest Law the following facts: The plaintiff was a resident of North Dakota at the time of the accident; his loss of income and the medical bills he incurred all affect North Dakota's economy; the vehicle in which he was riding at the time of the accident was registered and garaged in North Dakota, was insured under North Dakota rates, and was driven by a North Dakota resident; the trip in which the accident occurred originated in North Dakota, was to terminate there, and therefore the host-guest relationship originated in North Dakota. The brief of the plaintiff in support of the motion lists these factors as pointing to Minnesota law: The accident occurred in Minnesota; the defendant chose to use Minnesota highways to travel from the F-M Hotel to the Bowler, when he could have used North Dakota highways almost exclusively; the defendant made the decision to demonstrate acceleration of his automobile while driving in Minnesota; the injuries to the plaintiff were sustained in Minnesota; and the accident was investigated and a report was filed by a Minnesota law-enforcement officer. We believe the contacts with North Dakota are much more significant than those with Minnesota. The contacts with Minnesota are minimal. The locus of the accident was fortuitous, having resulted from a brief journey into Minnesota for food, beverage, and entertainment. Although we are not particularly enamored with our rule of contributory negligence, *756 and thus are not saying that it is a better rule of law than the Minnesota law of comparative negligence, we believe that the significant contacts in this case are with this State and that accordingly our substantive law should be applied to this case. We adopt with this case the significant-contacts approach as the choice of law and abandon the lex loci delicti doctrine. Applying the significant-contacts approach and noting that the significant contacts in this case point to the law of North Dakota, and applying the law of North Dakota to the instant case, we find that the trial court was correct in instructing the jury on the North Dakota rules of contributory negligence and assumption of risk and also correct in refusing to instruct the jury on the Minnesota law of comparative negligence. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the order denying the new trial. STRUTZ, C. J., and PAULSON, TEIGEN, and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.