Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc.
1957 Minn. LEXIS 580, 82 N.W.2d 365, 249 Minn. 376 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's Civil Damage Act, which creates a cause of action against a vendor for illegally selling alcohol, may apply to hold a resident vendor liable for injuries resulting from an out-of-state accident caused by the intoxication that began within the state.
Facts:
- Driscoll Hotel, Inc., operating The Hook-Em-Cow Bar in South St. Paul, Minnesota, sold intoxicating liquors to John Sorrenson.
- As a result of the sale, Sorrenson became intoxicated while at the defendant's establishment.
- Herbert G. Schmidt, a Minnesota resident, was a passenger in an automobile driven by the intoxicated Sorrenson.
- After leaving the bar, Sorrenson drove the automobile into Wisconsin.
- Near Prescott, Wisconsin, the automobile driven by Sorrenson turned over, causing injuries to Schmidt.
- All parties involved—Schmidt (the injured passenger), Sorrenson (the driver), and Driscoll Hotel, Inc. (the vendor)—were residents of or domiciled in Minnesota.
Procedural Posture:
- Herbert G. Schmidt sued Driscoll Hotel, Inc. in a Minnesota trial court under the state's Civil Damage Act.
- Defendant, Driscoll Hotel, Inc., moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the injury occurred in Wisconsin.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- The trial court ruled that the Minnesota Civil Damage Act did not have extraterritorial effect and could not apply to an injury inflicted outside Minnesota.
- A final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Driscoll Hotel, Inc.
- Plaintiff, Herbert G. Schmidt, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 Minnesota's Civil Damage Act apply to hold a Minnesota liquor vendor liable for injuries sustained in a Wisconsin automobile accident, when the vendor's illegal sale of alcohol and the resulting intoxication of the driver both occurred in Minnesota?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas Gallagher, Justice.
Yes. A Minnesota liquor vendor can be held liable under the Minnesota Civil Damage Act for injuries occurring out-of-state when the vendor's wrongful conduct took place in Minnesota. The traditional conflict of laws rule, lex loci delicti, which applies the law of the place of injury, should not be used when it frustrates the public policy of the forum state and leads to an inequitable result. Here, the defendant's wrongful act—the illegal sale of alcohol—was complete within Minnesota. All parties are Minnesota residents, and Minnesota has a strong interest in regulating its liquor vendors and providing a remedy for its citizens injured by violations of its statutes. Applying the law of the place of the illegal sale better serves justice and the legislative intent of the Civil Damage Act than mechanically applying the law of the place of injury.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the traditional, rigid conflict of laws doctrine of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong). The court rejected the mechanical application of this rule in favor of an early form of interest analysis, considering the policies of the involved states and the location of the wrongful conduct. This case foreshadowed a broader shift in American jurisprudence toward more flexible choice-of-law approaches, such as the "most significant relationship" test, which prioritize state interests and fairness over geographical technicalities. It establishes that a state's regulatory and remedial statutes can have extraterritorial effect when the conduct being regulated occurs within that state and the state has a strong connection to the parties and the dispute.
Unlock the full brief for Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc.