Owen v. Owen
1989 WL 86420, 444 N.W.2d 710, 1989 S.D. LEXIS 138 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the law of the state where a tort occurred violates a strong public policy of the forum state, the forum state may apply its own law under a public policy exception to the doctrine of lex loci delicti, particularly when the parties are residents of and have substantial contacts with the forum state.
Facts:
- Vicki Owen and Ronald Owen were a married couple who were long-time residents of South Dakota.
- They owned a home, paid property taxes, held driver's licenses, and registered their vehicles in South Dakota.
- The couple was temporarily residing in Indiana solely for Ronald Owen to complete his higher education, with the continuous intent to return to their home in South Dakota.
- On March 6, 1986, Ronald Owen was driving a van in Indiana with Vicki Owen as a passenger.
- Ronald Owen lost control of the vehicle, skidded off the road, and crashed into a utility pole.
- As a result of the crash, Vicki Owen suffered severe injuries, including a broken hip and a fractured femur.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicki Owen filed a negligence complaint against Ronald Owen in a South Dakota trial court.
- Ronald Owen filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that Indiana law should apply.
- The trial court, applying the doctrine of lex loci delicti, ruled that Indiana law controlled the case.
- Because Vicki Owen's complaint alleged only simple negligence and not the willful or wanton misconduct required by Indiana's guest statute, the trial court dismissed her complaint.
- Vicki Owen, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of lex loci delicti require the application of an Indiana guest statute, which bars negligence claims by passengers against drivers, in a lawsuit between two South Dakota residents when the accident occurred in Indiana but South Dakota has a strong public policy permitting such claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, J.
No. The doctrine of lex loci delicti does not require the application of the Indiana guest statute because it falls under a limited public policy exception. While reaffirming its adherence to the lex loci delicti rule for its certainty and simplicity, the court holds that it will not enforce a foreign law that is contrary to the strong public policy of the forum state. South Dakota's legislature demonstrated a strong public policy in favor of compensating injured passengers by repealing its own guest statute, making the Indiana statute, which requires proving wanton or willful misconduct, repugnant to South Dakota law. Given that both parties are South Dakota residents with overwhelming contacts in the state, and Indiana's interest is minimal beyond the fortuitous location of the accident, applying Indiana's law would be prejudicial to the general interests of South Dakota's citizens.
Concurring - Miller, J.
No, but for different reasons. The majority's creation of a public policy exception is a positive but insufficient step; the court should completely abolish the archaic and rigid lex loci delicti rule. This rule is intellectually unsound, lacks analytical focus, and produces irrational results, with its only defense being a simplistic ease of application. The public policy exception is merely an 'escape hatch' that will lead to unpredictable, ad hoc decisions in the future. Instead, South Dakota should join the vast majority of jurisdictions by adopting a modern conflicts of law approach, such as the 'choice-influencing considerations' framework, which provides a more responsible and equitable method for resolving such disputes.
Analysis:
This case illustrates a court's attempt to reconcile a traditional, rigid choice-of-law rule with the principles of fairness and state interest. By creating a public policy exception rather than fully abandoning lex loci delicti, the court adopts a transitional approach that functions similarly to the 'most significant relationship' test in cases involving forum residents. The decision softens the harshness of the traditional rule while trying to maintain its predictability. The strong special concurrence highlights the ongoing tension in conflicts jurisprudence and signals that the underlying doctrine of lex loci delicti remains vulnerable to future challenges in the jurisdiction.
