Schiltz v. Meyer, 71-207
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-207,71-207 |
| Citation | 280 N.E.2d 925,58 O.O.2d 391,29 Ohio St.2d 169 |
| Parties | , 58 O.O.2d 391 SCHILTZ et al., Appellants, v. MEYER, Appellee, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a nonresident of Ohio sues another nonresident in an Ohio court for damages for injuries arising from an automobile accident which occurred in this state, the case is governed by both the substantive and procedural laws of Ohio. (Ellis v. Garwood, 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d 100, and Seeley v. Expert, Inc., 26 Ohio St.2d 61, 269 N.E.2d 121, approved and followed.)
The causes consolidated in this appeal arose out of a two-car accident in Clinton County, Ohio, on May 7, 1966. One automobile was operated by Hattie Lee Meyer, a resident of Kentucky. Mabel Schiltz, also a resident of Kentucky, was a passenger therein. The other automobile was operated by Paul D. Myers, a resident of Ohio.
Suit was filed by Mabel Schiltz in the Common Pleas Court of Clinton County, alleging that her injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of both drivers. She did not allege wilful or wanton misconduct by Hattie Lee Meyer, her host.
Carl Schiltz, the husband of Mabel Schiltz, filed a companion case in the same court, seeking damages for loss of services and consortium, and expenses of treatment of his wife.
Paul D. Myers filed answers, setting forth a general denial. His portion of the case is not before this court.
Hattie Lee Meyer filed a demurrer to both petitions on the ground that no cause of action against her was stated under the Ohio 'guest statute,' R.C. 4515.02. 1
The Common Pleas Court sustained both demurrers, approving the ground alleged as to Mabel Schiltz' petition, and citing improper venue, R.C. 4515.01, as to the husband's petition. Accordingly, Hattie Lee Meyer was dismissed as a party to the actions.
By agreement of counsel, the causes were consolidated for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which court affirmed, holding that both demurrers were sustainable on the ground that no cause of action was stated under the Ohio 'guest statute.'
The causes are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Buckley & Miller, and James P. Miller, Wilmington, for appellants.
Bieser, Greer & Landis, Dayton, for appellee.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The issue is whether the substantive law of Ohio or Kentucky should be applied in an Ohio law suit between two residents of Kentucky, arising from an automobile accident which occurred in Ohio, wherein the plaintiff was a passenger-guest in an automobile driven by the defendant.
We have considered the rule of lex loci delicti in many previous cases. Freas v. Sullivan (1936), 130 Ohio St. 486, 200 N.E. 639; Collins v. McClure (1944), 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171; Ellis v. Garwood (1958), 168 Ohio St. 241, 152 N.E.2d 100; Lyons v. Lyons (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 243, 208 N.E.2d 533; Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 193, 195, 267 N.E.2d 405; Seeley v. Expert, Inc. (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 61, 269 N.E.2d 121. If it was our policy to automatically apply this rule, disposition would be simple, for there is no dispute as to where the accident occurred, or as to the resident state of the litigants herein.
It is this ease of application which is most cited as the reason for continued usage of the lex loci delicti rule, and, in view of the high degree of congestion in the courts today, it is an end to be sought. Those proponents of the 'center of gravity' 2 or 'grouping of contacts' theories argue that in many instances this ease of application is accomplished at the expense of justice. We agree that an automatic application of the rule in every choice-of-law case could, in some instances, produce inequitable results. Accordingly, we do not subscribe to automatic application of the rule in all cases, or as to all aspects of a case. We do not, however, feel that the general application of the rule has resulted in a low yield of justice. See concurring opinion of Leach, J., in Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, supra (25 Ohio St.2d 193), at page 201, 267 N.E.2d 405.
In Fox, we refused to apply the rule of lex loci delicti where such application would have strongly gone against the legislative policy of this state. That case involved an Ohio resident who brought an action in an Ohio court to recover for the wrongful death of her husband in an automobile accident which occurred in Illinois. No resident of Illinois was involved, and the state of Illinois, which limited the amount of recovery in wrongful death actions, had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.
...claims. See Schiltz v. Meyer (1971), 32 Ohio App.2d 221, 61 O.O.2d 247, 289 N.E.2d 587, affirmed on other grounds (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 169, 58 O.O.2d 391, 280 N.E.2d 925. The only exception to this rule can be found in the narrow circumstance where the underlying tort claim is barred by a ......
-
In re Silver Bridge Disaster Litigation
...Ohio has adopted a form of interest analysis as its choice of law standard in certain personal injury actions, Schiltz v. Meyer, 29 Ohio St.2d 169, 280 N.E.2d 925 (1972); Seeley v. Expert, Inc., 26 Ohio St.2d 61, 269 N.E.2d 121 (1971); Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight, 25 Ohio St.2d 193, 267 N......
-
Hoover v. Recreation Equipment Corp.
...on a case-by-case approach. Moats v. Metropolitan Bank of Lima, 40 Ohio St.2d 47, 49, 319 N.E.2d 603 (1974); Schiltz v. Meyer, 29 Ohio St.2d 169, 171-72, 280 N.E.2d 925 (1972). In Morgan v. Biro Manufacturing Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 339, 474 N.E.2d 286 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed and......
-
Hoover v. Recreation Equipment Corp., 89-CV-1896.
...Moats v. Metropolitan Bank of Lima, 40 Ohio St.2d 47, 49, 69 O.O.2d 323, 319 N.E.2d 603 (1974); Schiltz v. Meyer, 29 Ohio St.2d 169, 171-72, 58 O.O.2d 391, 280 N.E.2d 925 (1972). In Morgan v. Biro Manufacturing Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 339, 15 OBR 463, 474 N.E.2d 286 (1984), the Ohio Supreme Cour......