Milkovich v. Saari - 295 Minn. 155, 203 N.W.2d 408 (1973)

Rule:

Five basic "choice-influencing considerations" apply in conflict of laws cases. They are: (1) Predictability of results, (2) maintenance of interstate and international order, (3) simplification of the judicial task, (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and (5) application of the better rule of law. In selecting the law of a particular case the last two considerations carry most weight. 

Facts:

The car owner, the driver, and the passenger all were residents of Ontario, Canada. The car accident occurred in Minnesota. The car owner and the driver claimed that the law of Ontario should have applied and that their motion to dismiss should have been granted because Ontario had a guest statute that required proof of gross negligence, which was not alleged. The car owner and the driver also claimed that their affirmative defense that the law of Ontario should have applied was erroneously stricken by the district court.

Issue:

Should the passenger have been allowed to proceed with the action under the common law rules of negligence and that she should not have been bound by the guest statute requirements of the Ontario?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the passenger should have been allowed to proceed with the action under the common law rules of negligence and that she should not have been bound by the guest statute requirements of the Ontario. In so holding, the court indicated its preference for the better-law approach and its rejection of the guest statute concept of various jurisdictions. The basic premises for the considerations adopted by the court were first proposed by Professor Robert Leflar in his article, Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law, 41 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 267, 279, and briefly stated, the tests selected by the New Hampshire court are: (a) Predictability of results; (b) maintenance of interstate and international order; (c) simplification of the judicial task; (d) advancement of the forum's governmental interests; and (e) application of the better rule of law.