*1 is, herein there- judgment entered sup- pay for must right the father sum fore, remanded and the matter set aside children. port of these proceedings accordance with for further that Inter- we learned From the record opinion. plaintiff to item- requested rogatory 7No. remanded. Reversed and list her financial and give detail ize assets, copy of for a true 8 asked and No. All concur. Justices return or an tax her federal income thereof. the contents itemized statement of for income her to itemize her
No. 9 asked source, year its calendar giv- presently if she No. asked and, if
ing piano teaching lessons music or
so, In- earnings what were her therefrom. certain terrogatory No. asked whether Lillian J. F. BERGHAMMER of, John disposed she owned-were debentures Berghammer, Appellees-Cross- if price, 21 asked and for and No. what Appellants, up disposed any she of her assets had and, so, present until the time if what price. Smith SMITH Bernard Andrew d/b/a Trucking Appellant- answering In 20 the No. stated Cross-Appellee. she did not and does now own debentures, Hotel and she re- MOTOR Sheraton ADMIRAL-MERCHANTS Appel COMPANY, FREIGHT fused re- questions answer other lee-Cross-Appellant, ferred to above. True, SMITH Smith Bernard Andrew there was some evidence as d/b/a Trucking Company, Appellant- court, but there these matters before Cross-Appellee. opportunity to cross-examine de No. 54228. parties termine the actual status of the and, is ful opportunity court until that Supreme Court of Iowa. ly each, should have judgment afforded March Although appear been withheld. it would granted support child amount Rehearing April 5, Denied ability pay, unless father falls within his plaintiff fully discloses her financial condition the correctness of that
cannot be determined. Under these cir
cumstances, then, must be re the matter proceedings
manded further before
final decision is what is the rendered as to respondent. obligation just
Plaintiff is to a reasonable time given interrogatories answer as ordered
the trial court. such answers are When
filed the as it court shall take such action appropriate light opinion.
deems of this
If good faith with the order to compliance interrogatories accomplished
answer is not
within a time the case is to be reasonable
dismissed.
228
Nolan, Nolan, City, Lucas for & appellant-cross-appellee. Fassler, Rapids, ap-
Nelson for & Cedar pellees-cross-appellants.
LeGRAND, Justice. This appeal arises out of an automobile accident September which occurred on plaintiff, Berghammer, The F. John driving a truck owned Admiral- Motor Freight Company Merchants when he in a was involved head-on collision defendant, a truck owned Bernard Trucking Andrew Smith Smith d/b/a which being was then driven Bible, employee, is crucial Willis G. who matter to defendant’s Smith's appeal. extending fatally injured in the accident. order If aside, irregular time was and should be set jury verdicts in favor Trial resulted appeal then the notice filed as inju- personal Berghammer F. John provided in rule R.C.P. $113,777.61; Lillian ries in the amount of Berghammer following: for loss of Rule 247 includes the consortium $8000.00; the amount of and Admiral-Mer- under rules “Motions and 244 Freight Company proper- chants Motor * * * must be days filed within ten aft- ty $38,920.89. damage in the amount of filed, verdict, report er the decision discharged, appeal jury issues all or the raised as the case be, judgments except for unless the *4 good three are identical court for cause shown Berghammer parte, grants the claim that Lillian was not ex additional time not entitled to for not to days.” maintain her action loss exceed 30 Minnesota, consortium because provides Rule part: 335 reside, she and her did then husband not argues recognize such claim. Defendant “(a) Appeals Supreme to the Court must to re- right Minnesota law determines her within, after, taken days be and not 30 here. cover order, entry from the judgment or decree, unless a motion for new trial or procedural I. We discuss first a matter. judgment notwithstanding the verdict plaintiffs It arises dismiss on motion to 247, provided filed as in rule and then appeal, which was ordered submitted days ruling entry within 30 after the with the case. ” * * * on such motion. jury returned sealed verdicts on No- A complaint similar was considered 25, morning following vember 1969. Railway Dunham v. Des Moines entry the trial court made a not- calendar 421, 429, 578, 583. ing en- the verdicts and the same time at There the trial court had entered an ex following: tered the parte extending order the time within 22, given “Defendant until December which to file motion new trial. We pleadings to file or accord motions said, “The parte extension was ex and thus with the Rules Civil Procedure. 247, in violation of supra. Rule However to notify Clerk counsel.” irregular be, may such an order was jurisdictional as at the time the same was filed a Defendant motion for made, jurisdiction the court had full over 243, notwithstanding the verdict under rule parties both the subject and the matter. 244, and motion for new trial under rule doubt, upon timely No objections, or- Rules of Civil Procedure. On December might der be set aside.” adversely the court ruled to de- Plaintiff, timely objection who did make fendant on both motions. case, principally provi- relies on sions of our in Dun- appeal. Defendant then rule 247 and decision filed notice of pend- authority ham as Plaintiff asks us to for dismissal of appeal dismiss the be- 26, appeal. cause the entry calendar of November 1969, extending filing time for motions requirements Dunham also holds the parte was entered ex in violation rule rule waived. 247, R.C.P. Plaintiff filed a motion dis- trict court to set aside this order and of waiver We believe there evidence strike the motions filed under here, rules 243 because arises dispute too. The 244, R.C.P. This misunderstanding motion was over- between apparent an ruled. counsel. Nolan, tium was first raised defendant’s motion represented
Defendant under Rules of Civil Procedure. the time rule At and Nolan. Lucas The motion trial court hold affi- asked the of rule first claimed violation Minnesota, that the law of state of D. C. Nolan filed both davits were Berghammer domicile, marital determines recollection setting out their T. Nolan John They recovery. her leading up dispute. to this of events agreed were both verdicts state sealed At the time of the accident Minnesota given jury when the case did not cause of recognize a wife’s action filing extending the time for the matter of resulting neg from consortium say an They then discussed. motions was injuries husband. Eschen ligent to her losing reached agreement then N. Benjamin, bach v. 195 Minn. party unknown —should that time —at Schmit, did. Acuff v. W. 157. mo- file time within which to additional 480. Minnesota N.W.2d tions rules 243 and under recovery. Thill now also allows such Co., Erecting Modern Minn. were not controverted These affidavits September decided argues way. any Plaintiff refuted in required file vehemently he was appli- The trial denied defendant’s court not, Perhaps but counter-affidavits. Berg- 105 and held Mrs. cation under rule *5 helpful to us hardly is the to do so failure towas be de- right hammer’s to recover dispute factual between resolving This issue was by termined Iowa law. counsel. defendant again raised later when unsuc- cessfully claim the consortium asked that accept affidavits, then the If jury. the withdrawn from the parte there order of was no ex because by per defendant The doctrine relied on them, agreement reject If we of counsel. litiga to issue in mits a court to violated, then the rule was the extension which has the tion the of the state law aside, appeal the dis should be set and significant relationship par with the most appeal not missed because notice of was issue, principal ties and the interest days from of the served within 30 the date routinely to resorting instead of the law of required rule 335. verdict place the accident occurred —lex reputable respected attorneys When and recognized loci and delicti. We have of this court file sworn statements as cases, adopted principle in several al this personal matters of which though never under the circumstances ex knowledge, equally reputable and when and isting Horgen, here. Fabricius respected deny counsel fails to the state- 410, 415-416; 132 N.W.2d made, although having equal ments knowl- 547, 549, Flogel Flogel, 257 Iowa edge of the circumstances under which the 907, 908-910; Fuerste and v. Be occurred, justified events we feel in con- mis, (Iowa), 156 N.W.2d cluding the sworn statements state the sub- point stantial truth. interest Of on this assign this discussing Before see Tice Wilmington Corp., Chemical ment, plaintiff’s assertion we we consider 27, 34, 259 Iowa 141 N.W.2d 621. We at all no review it because not plaintiff’s hold ap- motion to dismiss the proof support the conten was offered peal should be overruled. different from tion Minnesota law ours. is true, course, judicially It we do This disposes plaintiff’s also cross-ap- notice the one law of other states. The peal which raises the same for our issue prove must it. foreign who relies law consideration. Drumheller, In re Estate of II. right of Lillian Berghammer 835. As al 110 N.W.2d to maintain mentioned, her ready question action for loss of consor- raised IOS, application A see why under rule no reason sig- R.C.P. the rule most [of ap- hearing held relationship] at which nificant should not be used in successfully peared determining and resisted defend- ap- substantive law to be application. plied litigation ant’s There is record each involving issue or- proceedings, question.” the trial court’s (Emphasis these but torts-conflicts add- specific finding der ed.) included that Minne- recovery did allow such while sota In Fuerste we discuss the reasons for did. In the absence of evidence our departure from the inflexible lex loci contrary, finding we assume many rule and cite of the authorities—both by proper proof foreign supported case upon which we relied. treatise — rightly hold the matter law. We before repeat We need not them This here. con us appeal. on this flict-of-laws problem preoccupied has years scholars recent and has been the has Consortium been defined as the subject of countless law review articles. wife; “conjugal fellowship of husband and We supplement mention a few to company, co- each those set out there: 13 Stanford Law Re
operation, affection and aid
other
view
Law
Contemporary
every
Schmit,
conjugal relation”. Acuff v.
(Duke
Problems
University)
15 U.C.
272,274,
L.A.
(a
Law Review 551
series of com
The claim for
“conjugal
fel-
Purcell,
ments on
Reich
67 Cal.2d
lowship” here
an
raises
unusual conflicts
Cal.Rptr. 31,
cile and significant because has the most relationships with particular them and the signifi- We hold Minnesota has the most issue involved. indeed, perhaps only cant— —relation- Prior to ship plaintiff 1965we would applied our and the of her issue own law to Berghammer’s an Mrs. claim as to maintain for loss of con- action place the law of the where the oc- sortium. reach this conclusion because accident Bemis, curred. See v. Minnesota is (Iowa), Fuerste 156 concerned with mari- 831, interspousal N.W.2d 832. tal status rights arising and duties therefrom. However, first Horgen, in Fabricius v. 268, 410, protect. again 132 has state interest Flogel Flogel, 547, v. 257 party 133 N. No is an Iowa resident. Iowa’s le- 907, gave W.2d clear gitimate protect indication its citizens who our concern intention join growing in- list of states services to one have rendered factor, scuttling the old lex loci delicti rule. Then here is volved in an accident in the Fuerste unequivocally case we consortium would es since for loss of a claim poused significant Kopp rule of relationship, not See give rise to such services. saying page 441, at N.W.2d, 1966, 833 141 N. 156 Minn. Rechtzigel, v. 273 “We
232 Railway Company, Chesapeake and Ohio N.Y. 527, Lopez, 124 526, Tooker v. W.2d 1961, F. 394, 194 Michigan, 519, Eastern District of 569, N.E.2d 249
2d
N.Y.S.2d
301
Corpo-
848;
Baking
v. Illinois
Supp.
Owen
Macey
v.
opinion
402,
concurring
1966,
Michigan,
591,
ration,
District
289,
Western
Rozbicki,
274 N.Y.S.2d
18 N.Y.2d
Cir.,
Knop,
820;
v.
7
F.Supp.
Sestito
380,
N.E.2d
Insur-
33;
Mutual
1961,
Harford
F.2d
policy recogniz-
our
may it be said
Nor
1968,
Bruchey,
248 Md.
Company v.
ance
for loss of consortium
claim
ing a wife’s
115; Conway
Ogier,
669,
238 A.2d
do more than
primarily to
was intended
681,
N.E.2d
App.
(1961), 115 Ohio
right to Iowa wives.
extend such
fact,
en-
worry, in
is for the
Iowa’s sole
pre-
never faced
Although we have
the road and
its law of
forcement of
ourselves,
said
what we
problem
cise
highways. The consortium
safety of its
of 257
supra, (page 551
Flogel
Flogel,
that issue.
claim does not touch
Iowa,
in Fuerste
907)
N.W.2d)
Bemis,
of 156
supra,
(page 833
authority that mat
There is considerable
principles
with the
general accord
indicate
rela
depend upon the marital
ters which
law of
holding the
opinions
set out in the
be decid
tionship for their solution should
ordinarily prevails.
the marital domicile
domi
ed
the law of the husband-wife
Purcell,
cile.
Reich v.
67 Cal.2d
See
true,
cases,
the courts
it is
In all of these
727;
Cal.Rptr.
Wartell v.
432 P.2d
the forum or
the law of
applied either
Formusa,
213 N.E.2d
34 Ill.2d
occurred,
the tort
place
law of
Schwartz,
Ariz.
Schwartz v.
rule
different
reason for a
but we see no
P.2d
Haumschild v. Continental Cas
is neither
domicile
when the marital
ualty
95 N.
7 Wis.2d
here,
whose
is,
a third state
these
but
814, 818; Thompson
Thompson,
W.2d
the other
superior
those of
interests
105 N.H.
tium claims either husband or Erecting Modern In Thill v. consortium. applied when the court Colorado law be- 508, 170 N.W.2d Company, 284 Minn. *7 place cause that the marital domi- was of 870, adopted a rule the Minnesota court too, Oregon, employed cile. has rule in the made its substantially ours but similar to case, although denying consortium recov- occur application prospective accidents ery particular under the facts of the case 19, September The mis ring 1969. after place because the of marital domicile was hap in in 1966. the case now before us was significant held not the state of most rela- it apply was If we Minnesota law as Schimmels, tionship. v. See Schneider Co., Erecting we prior v. Modern to Thill 1967, 366, 273; Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. 256 64 has give policy life which that state to a Casey Engi- v. Manson Construction and repudiated. though Even now 1967, 274, neering Company, 247 428 Or. prospective, rule we are has made the new P.2d 898. should de- not bound to do likewise. We Other faithfully courts have adhered to cide, rather, would whether that action the lex considering loci rule in loss of con- that state further some valid interest of sortium States Marine cases. Jordan particular under the circumstances of 1958, Corporation Delaware, Cir., of 257 9 case. (which F.2d 232 is discussed Cardamon 506, pro- v. Iowa Hospital, opinion Lutheran In it would not. The our 517, 226, per- 128 233); spective application apparently N.W.2d McVickers
233 protect Under holding rule to on old the of relying ruling mit the the trial those court, liability while enlarged erroneously se against finding Iowa law themselves applicable, coverage. was without curing prejudice insurance since the additional result is Dis the one (See Spanel v. School same we have reached. Mounds View 279, trict, 118 795 264 Minn. N.W.2d Balts, 419, 142 273 Minn. Balts v. We not the fact overlooked 66, opinion.) to in the Thill both referred that Thill the right makes wife’s to recover De present here.
But element not for loss of consortium (170 conditional. fendant, Illinois, cannot claim resident of page N.W.2d at 869.) believe the con applica the surprise injustice either at ditions substantially set down have been his state has rec tion of a rule which own met here. Dini v. Nai ognized since 1960 case of There is other one factor we should not 406, 881, ditch, 20 Ill.2d 170 N.E.2d ignore, although we do not base our deci against Presumably protected he himself sion although urged thereon and although liability. Incidentally, we at trial argued years nor here. In recent our to the law have confined discussion the discrimination which allowed hus Iowa because case was Minnesota and band to recover for wife’s con his argued presented the trial court sortium (an rule) almost universal but de basis, possi here on that Illinois also has a nied such to a wife her when hus ble state as the interest the outcome band (a.s was injured most did until states place of and the defendant’s residence Argonne Co., 1950 case of Hitaffer v. place presumably ga truck his 57, 811, 87 U.S.App.D.C. F.2d A.L. licensed, raged, and insured. denied, 852, R.2d cert. U.S. 71 S. Ct. 624) 95 L.Ed. subjected has been By enforcing the Minne- now discarded violating constitutional attack the 14th rule, ignore sota would own state we our guarantee equal protection. Amendment policy advancing without Minnesota’s. See Karczewski v. Rail Baltimore & Ohio Certainly purpose Minnesota’s not to way Company, Northern District of Illi protect non-resident motorists who had not nois, 1967, F.Supp. 169, Lef upon expense relied old rule at fler Wiley, App.2d Ohio its own citizens. In at fact we all N.E.2d v. Illinois Owen sure that apply pro- Minnesota would Thill Baking Corp., W.D.Michigan, F. spectively for the benefit of an de- Illinois Supp. fendant to whom it was neither unforeseen nor unjust. arising marriage A rule out rela- tionship but which extends or withholds Bemis, In supra, Fuerste rights solely basis of whether the said, at page premise “The basic wife or husband seeks them to enforce significant most relationships theory is —today—suspect violating equal court the forum should protection clause. the policy most inter- *8 litigants est in the and the outcome of the For the set reasons out herein we hold litigation.” (Emphasis added.) there was no reversible error in the trial proof ruling allowing court’s of claim for If employ we pre-Thill the Minnesota of consortium. rule, we premise” brush aside the “basic of the most significant relationship doctrine III. In his remaining assignments of since policy the of that rule has now been error defendant asserts there ir- (1) was: repudiated. areWe convinced the inconsistency doctrine gen- reconcilable the between Co., Thill Modern Erecting supra, special eral the verdict and answer a in- to prevail. terrogatory jury, requir- submitted to the aside; Assuming negative that the re be set general verdict the sponse special interrogatory pre sudden to the submitting the issue of in error
(2) finding plaintiffs on the first the trial court’s cludes a in error emergency; (3) interrogato- allegation of of sec negligence requested a to submit refusal —violation necessarily court’s re- tion 321.298—does follow in the trial ry; error (4) failed plain- could not still decide defendant because of a new trial grant fusal to proper keep to a lookout ? negligence either to establish tiffs’ failure proximate cause. indulge presump- every Since we must alleged grounds two petition Plaintiffs’ verdict, general tion in favor the ex- yield one-half negligence: (1) failure amine the in evidence its view most favor- in violation right-of-way of the traveled plaintiffs if it able to see will sustain a Code, 1966, 321.298, (2) The section liability finding ground de- on the sole proper look- a keep and maintain failure to keep proper fendant failed a lookout. out. other, approached As the two trucks each defendant’s vehicle came the center over head-on colli- awas virtual The accident angled line Berghammer toward the upon one pivotal question sion. —and vehicle. Plaintiff pulled driver to his difference of great there was a which so, assuming far as he could safely do the was over opinion which driver —was defendant would return to his side of the leading moments center line in the fateful road. When the two were vehicles up impact. apart, plaintiff few feet pulled driver hard following in- request, the At defendant’s left, hoping thereby give his defend- un- jury to the submitted terrogatory was enough ant room left on his to clear. Sub- Procedure: of Civil der rule Rules sequent events, course, proved him to be wrong. However, * * * attempt this last-minute determine you able to “Are by plaintiff explain * driver would jury’s * * the center of the side inability to determine which side of the paved highway of the portion occurred, center line impact and would ?” trucks collided two motor also be finding consistent with a that de- interrogatory answered jury fendant keeping proper was not lookout. argues nega- negative. Defendant impossi- makes it finding tive on this issue Turning in front oncoming of an liability jury to have found
ble for the car is Therefore, keep proper evidence of failure to defend- against the defendant. Hemmingsen, lookout. Law v. us, con- there is an irreconcilable ant tells 820, 829, N.W.2d Ham general verdict and the flict between Corrie, 896, 911, dorf v. 101 N. special interrogatory, to the answer ; W.2d Beyer, Mathews v. finding pre- special which must case 845 477, 480; 116 N.W.2d vail. Stoen, Iowa, Goettelman v. irreconcilable con true filed December It spe general and a flict between a verdict quote the Hemmingsen we In Law v. finding cial must be resolved favor Beckwith, 245 special following cir from Hackman finding, and that 791, 802, 803, 64 general cumstances verdict cannot ordinarily on the However, drive presump “Motorists do not stand. all reasonable approaching ve- left in of a near general tions the face verdict. favor *9 1203, they they coming; and if do Hawkeye hicle if see Stages, v. Fischer 1205, 284, not, question become a 286; of lookout Presthus v. 37 N.W.2d one, proper jury’s for the consid- material Western Mutual Insurance 1035,1037, 549, Iowa eration.” 135 N.W.2d ap escape. the left offered chance of particularly best language
That is question pulled left, hard to his jury He and the collision plicable believe a here. We question instantly. followed almost on the of lookout. was made out con was no It there irreconcilable follows Perhaps the decisions made under ver general special flict between not, urgency of the moment do retro- dicts. But, satisfy spect, critical examination. approaching he was confronted as with the in the said we have IV. What him, bearing upon plaintiff vehicle down what previous perhaps presages division driver is not held to the same standard defend to our reference conclusion as if sound situation ex- there was no evidence ant’s claim that properly isted. As the trial told court submitting sudden justify the issue of jury, only he then bound to act “as a emergency jury. to the person prudent careful and when would act suddenly placed in a position.” similar was as the instruction objection The follows: plaintiff driver met this norm Whether proper question jury determina was for * “* * excepts objects defendant tion under the record us. Mathews before the issue 21 which submits instruction 52, 56, 57, Beyer, 254 Iowa 116 N.W.2d emergency jury, to the of sudden 480; 477, Pinckney Watkinson, 254 in this case under evidence reason that 151, 144, 258, 262; 116 N.W.2d Gibbs in- emergency of sudden there is no issue ” Wilmeth, 157 N. *** volved. 93, 97-98; Miner, (Iowa), W.2d Yost v. as an challenged instruction 557, 563; Keifer, Bangs su law, only be- statement of the incorrect pra, 174N.W.2d at 374. been sub- the issue not have cause should limit our consideration mitted at all. We Neither V. do we find merit accordingly. plaintiff defendant’s claim failed as that prove negligence a matter of law to either be that argument seems to Defendant’s proximate cause. we have al What take obliged driver effec ready said serves to demonstrate there was upon immediately tive action evasive evidence elements sufficient of both these oncoming over the center seeing the truck jury submission. continues, so, plain Failing line. to do he say resulting emergency cannot tiff assignment VI. last deals making. Mass v. not of his own See
Mesic, with the trial court’s to submit this failure 127 N.W.2d Iowa, requested Wolfe, 1969, interrogatory: 164 N. Baker v. Keifer, Bangs v. W.2d you find “Do from evidence Iowa, cannot 374. We shoulder there sufficient room on the agree say as a with defendant nor can we highway side for such on the east plaintiff’s matter reaction must place distance south of and east of the both immediate and successful have been where the collision case occurred or all is lost. plaintiff, Berg- permitted the F. John hammer, to have driven his truck off only sepa- The evidence shows 300 feet ?” pavement and onto the shoulder rated the two when defendant first crossed line. The the center interval from inter- refused to submit The court moment until collided can find in such refus- no error rogatory. We in seconds—and measured few them. deal with Interrogatories al. They should specific Plaintiff He terms of evidence. promptly. driver did act fact ultimate right; first his determined be directed toward some turned then *10 jury’s determina- applicable is sota courts hold to be or the law which essential interrogatory may differently apply? above which hold to tion of case. question. such a It pose set out does appli- problem here Involved is merely one evi- asks for a determination of Conventional cable law two dimensions. fact, partially at best dentiary which could principles deal with differ- conflict of laws plaintiffs’ overall substantiate refute is geographically. question ent That laws testimony. determine ulti- It could not here; seen, not difficult as Minnesota law the verdict in this mate fact decisive to put ques- applies. therefore 730, 737, Ruess, Ipsen case. 241 Iowa aside. tion 658, 664; Dezsi v. Mutual Association, Benefit Health and Accident present But the case also differ involves 1027, 1037, 255 Iowa 125 N.W.2d ent temporally. laws Between the time of City Rapids Compa- Barnard v. Cedar Cab trial, the collision and the the Minnesota ny, 734, 748, 133 N.W.2d changed judicial law consortium was Livingston Morarend, Erecting Co., decision. Thill v. Modern 508, 170 284 Minn. N.W.2d 865. pointed Ipsen Ruess, supra, As out legal Three issues must be considered. the trial court law, has wide discretion in decid- temporally, usually applicable What interrogatories what should be submit- respect claim, to a claim? to this With ted to jury. We believe the decision applicable according what is law here was the correct one. applicable Minnesota courts? is the What according to us ?
We have reviewed all the errors as- signed by defendant find no reversible Temporally. I. Laws When Different judgments error. The are therefore af- one state is involved but different firmed. point time, laws exist in the substantive law of the ap- time of an occurrence is
Affirmed.
plied
occurrence,
to that
rather
than the
Beale,
law as of the time of the trial.
LARSON,
STUART, MASON,
Laws,
Conflict of
(“Some
n.
(1935)
BECKER, JJ., concur.
proper law
governed
must have
juridi-
cal situation at
the time of
its occur-
UHLENHOPP,
MOORE,
J.,
J., and
rence”).
C.
Applying the law as of the time
RAWLINGS, J.,
except
concur
toas Divi-
of trial would mean that the results in liti-
gation,
sion II and the
state,
for Lillian
even within one
would differ
J.
Berghammer, to
which
dissent.
according to the time trial was held.
**
*
“Choice of the law
at the time
* * *
of trial
contrary
stability
REES, J.,
part.
takes no
justice.” Stimson,
fundamental
Con-
Laws,
flict of
3 (1963). Thus in a Minne-
UHLENHOPP,
(concurring
Justice
sota trial concerning a Minnesota collision
part, dissenting
part).
involving
people,
the Minnesota
applies
Bergham-
What law
to Lillian
apply
courts
the Minnesota substantive law
mer’s claim for loss
?
of consortium
as of the time of
collision,
just as in an
Iowa trial concerning an Iowa collision in-
parties
do not raise constitutional is-
volving
people,
the Iowa
apply
courts
sues but
in disagreement
as to the law
Iowa substantive law as
time of the
applicable
which is
to that
Minne-
claim.
collision. Schultz
Gosselink,
appears
sota law
under the “most
115,
237 a recognized power have the of court to a the time of as of in force the that law overruling opera- hold decision is that an necessarily remain does not collision prospectively only tive and is not even Al- that time. applicable to law which is rights parties upon the of the time the occur- operative of the law as of the though to the As a matter of overruling case. arising that oc- from governs claims rence law, operation constitutional retroactive time currence, can at a later legislature overruling of an is neither re- decision Then that law. retroactively change quired prohibited. nor is the new applicable to the law occurrence 478 479 at law. 50 Statutes §§ Am.Jur. recognized judicial This court that has de- 415 Statutes at 482 at 82 §§ C.J.S. prospective cisions oper- be limited at 421 at 996. Wisniewski, ation. State v. (Iowa). 882 traditionally op- decisions Judicial prospec- well as retroactively (as erated Supreme What did the Minnesota Court change in the tively). Thus a decisional Thill, do recognized In here? it a wife’s consortium, such as relating to law claim for loss of consortium and overruled Thill, retrospective, so normally be would prior decisions, its but it restricted the new recovery had loss of con- that could be rule to future occurrences. Consequently Thill on oc- sortium in trials based after according Court, to the Minnesota the law subsequent currences before Thill. prior claim, force at the a time of such prior occur- decision “relates back” here, as we have remains the same as Formerly result was based rences. when the place. collision Berg- took Mrs. merely “discover” judges that thought hammer’s consortium, claim for if assert- prior rule is common law rules. When courts, ed the Minnesota would fail. by decision, subsequent changed “the III. Law "As Occurrence” Accord- law, pretend do to make new judges ing to Iowa. apply Minnesota law misrepre- but one from to vindicate the old this case. Do apply we the Minnesota law They sentation. do not decide on the nonretrospectivity of Thill ? law, former decision but that was bad Blackstone, Commentaries, was not law.” The law of a state to the as applicability 41-42 (Gavitt Ed.1941). of its own laws temporally appear would part be of the law substantive of that state. theory longer recog Blackstone’s is no Thus if the legislature enacted nized, today courts sometimes restrict statute creating liability or abolishing application of a decision to future oc consortium, loss of expressly provided Ry. currences. Great Northern v. Sun the act prospective only, could the courts Co., burst Refining & 53 Oil 287 U.S. of another applying Minnesota law S.Ct. As stated An L.Ed. disregard that express provision of the notation, —Applica Overruling Decisio n statute? So judicial decisions can a tion, 1371, 1377-1378: 10 A.L.R.3d claimant cite support Thill in of her con- sortium claim disregard Thill’s re- Under view classical application stricted as to time ? merely courts and announced discovered existing law, which had hand in prospectivity law of a state as creating, restricting no issue part the rule is not retrospectivity of laws its of an overruling prospective op- case the conflict rules of that state. of laws eration could presented, since ordinarily the act We understand conflict of laws of overruling was a confession that applicability rules to relate laws earlier Restatement, rule geographically. had been erroneous and Conflict Laws, applied all; c; Beale, never have been at Comment Conflict § but decisions, Laws, the modern taking Ehrenzweig, a more Conflict (1935); pragmatic Laws, judicial function, view of the (1962). apply When we marriages of time nizing its common state, do not another law of marriage, Michigan law outlaw- apply its rules, dowe but laws conflict of marriage trial); time of the as of Restate- law. substantive relevant other Stiles, Beale, F.Supp. (D.N.M.) Clews v. Laws, 7(b); 1 ment, Conflict § *12 Leflar, applying (federal court New Mexico Law Laws, (1935); Conflict jurisdiction denying over nonresidents as Law, (1968). Such American Conflicts incident, of time of the not New Mexico seem law would substantive other relevant law assuming jurisdiction ret- as of time on prospectivity law to include its trial). rospectivity. applying courts Minnesota substan- addi- would mean Any other conclusion tive law should the Minnesota law already uncertainty in the uncertain tional pertaining to the applicability of Minnesota “certainty, principles, conflict of laws laws as present to time. The claim for uniformity of result”
predictability, and consortium would be dismissed in in the important objectives conflict Minnesota and should be dismissed here. as in other branches of law. laws field Leflar, Choice-Influencing Considerations appeal motion to dismiss should be Law, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. Conflicts overruled judgments and the plaintiffs say, apply Min- we we will 279. If affirmed, should be except law to an incident but not the law nesota Lillian Berghammer, which apply, courts we would not Minnesota should be reversed. law; applying would be Minnesota applying If the some law of our own. MOORE, J., RAWLINGS, C. J., provides or the Min- legislature Minnesota join in special concurrence and dis- nesota courts hold that a statute or deci- sent. operates prospectively ap- sion but we ply retrospectively, apply- saying we are
ing law, then Minnesota must
have two laws—the Minnesota law in Min- and the
nesota Minnesota law in A Iowa.
litigant result; get in Minnesota would one litigant
another suing Iowa because of circumstance, some fortuitous such as ac- DENNING, Appellant, Mary A. quisition jurisdiction of the defendant here, would get another although result — Minnesota law supposedly applied in DENNING, Appellee. T. Janies both cases. Such is the situation which No. 54355. Stimson “contrary describes as stability justice.” fundamental Stimson, Con- Supreme Iowa. Court Laws, flict of (1963). March problem in-
Decisions which involve the applied
dicate that laws of another
prospectively applied by the there are so Spriggs Dredge, 74
state of the
forum.
(Ohio
Law Abst.
Ohio deny-
App.) (Ohio applying Alabama law death, claims of time death as allowing
not Alabama law such claims trial); time of the Planet Livermore v.
Corp., App.Div.2d 208 N.Y.S.2d
(New applying Michigan recog- York