Heath v. Zellmer
35 Wis. 2d 578, 151 N.W.2d 664, 1967 Wisc. LEXIS 1231 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a true conflict of laws exists in a tort action, the court will not automatically apply the law of the place of the injury (lex loci delicti), but will instead determine the applicable law by weighing five choice-influencing considerations, including the advancement of the forum's interests and the application of the better rule of law.
Facts:
- Eileen Meyer, an Ohio resident, her mother, and sister, all Indiana residents, began a round-trip car journey from Indiana to Wisconsin.
- The automobile was owned by an Indiana resident, registered in Indiana, and insured by an Indiana-domiciled company.
- After a stay of several days in Wisconsin, they began their return trip to Indiana.
- For the return journey, three Wisconsin residents joined as additional passengers in the Meyer vehicle.
- While still driving in Wisconsin, the car driven by Eileen Meyer was involved in a collision with another vehicle.
- The second vehicle was driven by a Wisconsin resident and was garaged and insured in Wisconsin.
Procedural Posture:
- Injured passengers (plaintiffs) sued the drivers (defendants) in a Wisconsin trial court following a two-car accident.
- The host driver's insurer and others were brought into the suit as impleaded defendants.
- The impleaded defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Indiana's guest statute applied and barred the claims against the host driver.
- The Wisconsin trial court denied the motion for summary judgment.
- The impleaded defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a tort action arising from a Wisconsin automobile accident, does Indiana's guest statute, which requires a showing of 'wanton or wilful' misconduct for a host driver's liability, apply when the host-guest relationship was formed in Indiana, but the accident occurred in Wisconsin, which allows recovery for ordinary negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No, Indiana's guest statute does not apply; Wisconsin law, which permits recovery for ordinary negligence, governs the standard of care. When a true conflict of laws exists, the court should not rigidly apply the law of the place of the wrong, but instead use a qualitative analysis based on choice-influencing considerations. Here, Indiana's interest is in protecting its host drivers and insurers, while Wisconsin's interest is in compensating injured persons and deterring negligent conduct on its highways. The court adopted five choice-influencing considerations to resolve such conflicts: (1) predictability of results, (2) maintenance of interstate order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. Applying these factors, the court determined that predictability is irrelevant in unplanned torts and that applying Wisconsin law would not disrupt interstate order. Most importantly, applying Wisconsin law advances the forum's strong governmental interest in compensating victims and promoting safety on its roads. Furthermore, the court concluded that Wisconsin's ordinary negligence standard is the 'better rule of law' compared to Indiana's 'anachronistic' guest statute, which is out of step with modern socioeconomic realities.
Analysis:
This decision marks Wisconsin's definitive move away from the rigid, traditional conflicts rule of lex loci delicti (law of the place of the injury) in tort cases. It establishes a new, flexible methodology for resolving true conflicts of law by adopting Professor Leflar's five 'choice-influencing considerations.' The inclusion of 'application of the better rule of law' as a factor is particularly significant, as it explicitly permits the forum court to make a qualitative judgment about which state's law is more just and modern, giving the court substantial discretion to apply its own law in many situations. This approach prioritizes policy analysis and governmental interests over the geographic fortuity of an accident's location.
