Opinion ID: 1752850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexton v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc

Text: On March 29, 1976, plaintiff and a co-employee, Michigan residents and employees of a Michigan corporation, were operating a truck leased from defendant during the course of their employment. The truck was titled and registered in the name of defendant Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Michigan, and leased from defendant's offices in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it had been principally garaged and, presumably, insured. Plaintiff had embarked on a business trip to an unspecified location outside of Michigan. The journey originated and was to have terminated in Kalamazoo, Michigan, at the employer's place of business. Early in the morning of March 29, however, the truck overturned in Wytheville, Virginia. Plaintiff, who occupied the sleeper portion of the vehicle at the time of the accident, suffered serious injury. The record does not indicate that any other person was injured or that other property damage was sustained. Plaintiff and his wife instituted a tort action for personal injuries against the Michigan defendant-owner in Kalamazoo Circuit Court pursuant to the Michigan motor vehicle owners' liability statute which provides in pertinent part that [t]he owner of a motor vehicle shall be liable for any injury occasioned by the negligent operation of such motor vehicle. MCL 257.401; MSA 9.2101. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that since both the accident and injury occurred in Virginia, pursuant to the lex loci rule, the law of Virginia rather than the Michigan law should control disposition of plaintiff's asserted owners' liability claim. Since Virginia had not provided for such owners' liability actions by statute or at common law, Virginia law should be applied to disallow plaintiff's suit. Because the accident occurred in Virginia, which had made no provision for owner's liability, Judge Borsos granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. In so ruling, Judge Borsos remarked: Since Michigan is the forum, this court will apply Michigan's choice of law rule. There is no doubt that traditionally Michigan, like all other states, has applied the common-law rule  `the place of the wrong'  when confronted with a conflict of state laws. But while Michigan has clung to this rule, many other states have shifted to a new approach, the dominant contacts method. Although this method has its difficulties, there is much to be said for it; under the significant contacts rule, cases such as this one appear to reach a more reasonable result. In this case, it is clear that Virginia really has no interest at stake at all. The parties and property involved are all from Michigan, and there is nothing in this case that would affect the safety of Virginia highways or the burden on its hospitals or social service rolls. By contrast, Michigan has much at stake. The Legislature has decided for policy reasons that those who own automobiles have such powerful instruments at their disposal that when they turn over the keys to someone else, they are still responsible. This is important not only for the security of Michigan roads, but for the security of Michigan citizens.