CONFLICT OF LAWS | SCHMIDT V. DRISCOLL HOTEL, INC., 249 MINN. 376, 377 (MINN. 1957)

SCHMIDT V. DRISCOLL HOTEL, INC.,

249 MINN. 376, 377 (MINN. 1957)


TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Holding that the law of the place of negligence controls

 

FACTS

Decided by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1957. The defendant, the operator of a bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, illegally sold intoxicating liquor to one Sorrensen who at the time was already intoxicated. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff was injured in Wisconsin while riding with Sorrensen in his automobile.

He sued in Minnesota under the "Minnesota Dram Shop Act", which, if applicable, would impose responsibility on the defendant.

On April 28, 1956, the trial court made its order granting defendant's motion. In the order granting the same, the trial court determined that "No penalty by way of collecting damages arose under M.S.A. 340.95 [Civil Damage Act], unless the injury was inflicted in the state. No civil action to collect the penalty arose unless the illegal sale in the state was followed by an injury in the state. * * * M.S.A. 340.95 does not provide for extraterritorial effect, * * *."

It is defendant's position that the action is governed by the law of torts and that, since the last act in the series of events for which plaintiff instituted his action occurred in Wisconsin, which has no Civil Damage Act similar to § 340.95, the latter can have no application in determining plaintiff's rights or defendant's liability. In support thereof defendant cites Restatement, Conflict of Laws, 377, which states:

"The place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place."

And § 378, which states:

"The law of the place of wrong determines whether a person has sustained a legal injury."

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the defendant is liable under the “Minnesota Dram Shop Act.”

 

RULING

Yes.

The court held that the trial court was correct in granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, for, while defendant illegally sold intoxicants in Minnesota to the person causing plaintiff's injuries, such injuries to plaintiff were sustained in the State of Wisconsin which therefore was the place of wrong.” To thus apply Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 377 and 378, in multistate fact situations like the present would deprive an injured party of his remedy under the Civil Damage Act both in the state where the statutory violations occurred, as well as in the state where the last event took place giving rise to plaintiff's damages.

The court felt that the principles in Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 377 and 378, should not be held applicable to fact situations such as the present to bring about the result described and that a determination to the opposite effect would be more in conformity with principles of equity and justice. Here all parties involved were residents of Minnesota. Defendant was licensed under its laws and required to operate its establishment in compliance therewith. Its violation of the Minnesota statutes occurred here, and its wrongful conduct was complete within Minnesota when, as a result thereof, Sorrenson became intoxicated before leaving its establishment. The consequential harm to plaintiff, a Minnesota citizen, accordingly should be compensated for under M.S.A. 340.95 which furnishes him a remedy against defendant for its wrongful acts.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147