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.
