Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel

Citation82 N.W.2d 365,249 Minn. 376
Decision Date12 April 1957
Docket NumberNo. 36973,36973
PartiesHerbert G. SCHMIDT, a minor, by his mother and natural guardian, Matie T. Schmidt, Appellant, v. DRISCOLL HOTEL, Inc., d/b/a The Hook-Em-Cow Bar and Cafe, Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Syllabus by the Court

1. M.S.A. § 340.95, commonly known as the Civil Damage Act, provides that 'Every * * * person who is injured in person or property, * * * by any intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, * * *' against any person who illegally sold or gave the intoxicating liquor, and so caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages sustained. Sale of liquor in violation of § 340.14, subd. 1, which forbids selling of intoxicants to a person obviously intoxicated, would constitute such an illegal sale as to give rise to an action under § 340.95.

2. Under Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 377, the place of wrong in multistate tort actions is the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place, and under § 378, the law of such place ordinarily determines the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.

3. If these sections be held applicable here, the trial court was correct in granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, for, while defendant illegally sold intoxicants in Minnesota to the person causing plaintiff's injuries, such injuries to plaintiff were sustained in the State of Wisconsin which therefore was the place of wrong.

4. To thus apply Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 377 and 378, in multistate fact situations like the present would deprive an injured party of his remedy under the Civil Damage Act both in the state where the statutory violations occurred, as well as in the state where the last event took place giving rise to plaintiff's damages.

5. Application of Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 377 and 378, to multistate fact situations relating to civil damage acts is not required by virtue of any common-law principles. Here, where all parties involved were residents of Minnesota; where defendant was licensed in this state; and where its wrongful acts in violation of the Minnesota statutes for which it became liable under M.S.A. § 340.95 took place and were completed here, Held plaintiff's right to compensation therefor under § 340.95 was established in Minnesota even though his ultimate harm occurred outside the state.

6. For cases in support of conclusions similar to that reached here, see Gordon v. Parker, D.C.D.Mass., 83 F.Supp. 40; Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co., Inc., 108 Conn. 333, 143 A. 163, 61 A.L.R. 846; Moore v. Pywell, 29 App.D.C. 312, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1078; Gratz v. Claughton, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 46; Caldwell v. Gore, 175 La. 501, 143 So. 387.

7. Decisions in Eldridge v. Don Beachcomber, Inc., 342 Ill.App. 151, 95 N.E.2d 512, 22 A.L.R.2d 1123, and Goodwin v. Young, 24 Hun 252, construing civil damage acts of those states, are at variance with determination here.

Judgment is reversed.

Daniel T. Cody, J. M. Daly, St. Paul, Lipschultz, Altman, Geraghty & Mulally and H. E. Cochrane, St. Paul, for appellant.

Hoffmann, Donahue & Graff, T. Eugene Thompson, St. Paul, for respondent.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Plaintiff, Herbert G. Schmidt, a minor, instituted this action by his mother and natural guardian, Matie T. Schmidt, against the Driscoll Hotel, Inc., doing business as The Hook-Em-Cow Bar and Cafe in South St. Paul, for damages alleged to have resulted from defendant's illegal sale of intoxicants to one John Sorrenson.

The complaint alleged that defendant illegally sold intoxicating liquors to Sorrenson to the extent of causing him to become intoxicated in defendant's establishment in South St. Paul so that shortly thereafter, as a proximate result thereof, plaintiff sustained injuries when an automobile driven by Sorrenson, in which plaintiff was a passenger, was caused to turn over near Prescott, Wisconsin.

Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that it failed to state a claim against it. Subsequently, it moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the pleadings failed to state a claim against the defendant and that the court lacked jurisdiction.

On April 28, 1956, the trial court made its order granting defendant's motion. In the order granting the same, the trial court determined that 'No penalty by way of collecting damages arose under M.S.A. § 340.95 (Civil Damage Act), unless the injury was inflicted in the state. No civil action to collect the penalty arose unless the illegal sale in the state was followed by an injury in the state. * * * M.S.A. § 340.95 does not provide for extraterritorial effect, * * *.'

This is an appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to the foregoing order.

1. M.S.A. § 340.14, subd. 1, provides: 'No intoxicating liquor shall be sold * * * to any person obviously intoxicated * * *.' M.S.A. § 340.95, commonly known as the Civil Damage Act, provides that: 'Every * * * person who is injured in person or property, * * * by any intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, against any person who, by illegally selling, bartering or giving intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages, sustained; * * *.' We have recently held this provision to be essentially remedial in nature although penal in its characteristics. Adamson v. Dougherty, 248 Minn, ---, 81 N.W.2d 110.

2. It is defendant's position that the action is governed by the law of torts and that, since the last act in the series of events for which plaintiff instituted his action occurred in Wisconsin, which has no Civil Damage Act similar to § 340.95, 1 the latter can have no application in determining plaintiff's rights or defendant's liability. In support thereof defendant cites Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 377, which states:

'The place of wrong is in the state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place.'

And § 378, which states:

'The law of the place of wrong determines whether a person has sustained a legal injury.'

3. The allegations of the complaint by which we are bound for the purposes of this appeal make clear that plaintiff's damages are the result of two distinct wrongs--one committed by defendant in Minnesota when it sold Sorrenson intoxicating liquors in violation of M.S.A. § 340.14, subd. 1; and one committed by Sorrenson in Wisconsin when his negligence caused the car in which plaintiff was riding to turn over. It cannot be disputed that, had plaintiff's action been against Sorrenson for his negligence, his rights would be governed by the law of Wisconsin applicable in tort actions of this kind. Sohm v. Sohm, 212 Minn. 316, 3 N.W.2d 496; Hardgrove v. Bade, 190 Minn. 523, 252 N.W. 334. But, even if at the time of the accident there had been in effect in Wisconsin a statute similar to § 340.95, it is doubtful if it could be applied to ascertain plaintiff's rights against defendant since there is nothing here to support a claim that defendant ever consented to be bound by Wisconsin law. See Scheer v. Rockne Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 68 F.2d 942; Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253, 53 S.Ct. 599, 77 L.Ed. 1158.

4. From the foregoing, it would follow that, if the principles expressed in Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 377 and 378, are held applicable to multistate fact situations like the present, then neither the laws of the state where the last event necessary to create tort liability took place nor the laws of the state where the liquor dealer's violations of the liquor statutes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Casey v. Manson Const. & Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1967
    ...administration of decedents' estates, which is a purely local proceeding'. 41 Cal.2d at 866, 264 P.2d at 949. Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc., 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365 (1957) involved a Minnesota statute which provided that if a person illegally sells intoxicating liquor to another, cau......
  • Richards v. United States, 59
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1962
    ...liability in exactly the same manner. 26 Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 264 P.2d 944, 42 A.L.R.2d 1162; Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc., 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365; Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co., 7 Wis.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814. See Currie, Survival of Actions: Adjudication versu......
  • Abendschein v. Farrell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 20, 1968
    ...Rozbicki (1966), 18 N.Y.2d 289, 274 N.Y.S.2d 591, 221 N.E.2d 380.9 Following the now famous Minnesota case of Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc. (1957), 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365. Another case applying the law of the place of wrongful conduct is Myers v. Gaither (D.C.App.1967), 232 A.2d 577......
  • IN RE PARIS AIR CRASH OF MARCH 3, 1974
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • August 1, 1975
    ...in camera" 6 The reference footnote, 26, reads as follows: "Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 264 P.2d 944; Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc., 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365; Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co., 7 Wis.2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814. See Currie, Survival of Actions: Adjudication vers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Choice of law and predictability of decisions in products liability cases.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 34 No. 5, October 2007
    • October 1, 2007
    ...Conflicts Restatement?, 75 IND. L.J. 403, 412 (2000) [hereinafter Juenger, Third Restatement]. (65.) Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc., 82 N.W.2d 365, 366 (Minn. 1957) (holding that the interests of equity and justice required that the principles of the First Restatement did not apply to the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT