Court Opinion

ID: 9677764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:59:09.887906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:58.217904
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). I have signed both Justice Williams’ and Justice Kavanagh’s opinion and hence a word of explanation appears to be in order.
Justice Williams’ opinion would hold that, in an action commenced in Michigan growing out of an accident in another state, Michigan common and statutory law shall be applied whenever the plaintiff and defendant are both either residents of or corporations doing business in Michigan. Justice Kavanagh’s opinion would hold that in a tort action commenced in Michigan, the domestic law of this state shall govern absent a reason for applying the law of another state and that the place of the wrong is not a reason for not applying Michigan domestic law.
For reasons set forth in Justice Williams’ opinion, where the plaintiff and the defendant are both either Michigan residents or corporations doing business in this state, ordinarily there will be insufficient reason for applying the law of another state.
Unless the defendant has some relationship with Michigan sufficient to subject him, her or it to long-arm jurisdiction, the question whether Michigan or some other law should apply will not arise because the defendant will not have effectively been made a party to the action. Unless the plaintiff has a relationship with Michigan, the case will (absent a relationship with Michigan on the part *442of defendant) be subject to dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
In those circumstances, there appears to be little reason to have one choice-of-law rule for lawsuits where the defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of Michigan because he, she or it resides or does business in this state and another rule for lawsuits where the defendant is subject to Michigan jurisdiction because of some other relationship with this state. I therefore agree with Justice Kavanagh that we should go the distance and declare that Michigan law will apply in all personal injury and property damage actions without regard to whether the plaintiffs and defendants are all Michigan persons unless there is compelling reason for applying the law of some other jurisdiction,1 and that merely because the injury arose out of an occurrence in another state is not such a reason.
The opinions of the justices today have implications for other choice-of-law questions. There will be an effort to extend this retreat from lex loci delicti to choice-of-law questions in other fields of law. Those questions are not now presented. The Court should not now attempt to prognosticate their disposition. The Court is uninformed of the implications of extending the concepts today adopted for personal injury and property damage actions to other fields of law.2 It should, therefore, be emphasized that the choice of law in other *443fields of law continues to be governed by precedents (based essentially on the lex loci doctrine) and that, accordingly, neither the Court of Appeals nor the trial courts are authorized to depart from heretofore established choice-of-law rules in other fields of law.
In a personal injury or property damage action where the judge concludes that there is a compelling reason to apply the law of some other jurisdiction, he should state the reason for so concluding on the record so that the question can be reviewed with his reasons in mind.

 1 agree that the Michigan civil liability statutes apply where the loss arises out of an accident involving a vehicle which had a situs in Michigan when permission to use the vehicle was granted in Michigan and the journey began in Michigan.

 The Court has over the years seen a considerable number of personal injury and property damage choice-of-law questions in differing factual situations. The paucity of litigation reaching this Court presenting choice-of-law questions in other fields of law suggests caution in reconsidering prior choice-of-law precedent in those fields of law.