 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Voelzke v. Fowler3/14/2003
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas which granted appellees, Michael Fowler and Christine Cole, summary judgment against appellant, Christopher Voelzke, and denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
. Appellant was injured in a single motor vehicle accident on October 12, 1998, while riding in a vehicle owned by Cole and driven by Fowler. The accident occurred in Williams County, Ohio; however, all parties were residents of Michigan and appellees were insured under a policy of auto insurance issued in Michigan. As such, the trial court held that the substantive law of Michigan applied in this case. In ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment, in applying Mich.Comp.Laws Ann., Chapter 500.3135, the trial court found that appellant failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether he met the Michigan no-fault threshold of having suffered "a serious impairment of body function" in the accident.
. Appellant appeals the decision of the trial court and raises the following assignments of error:
. "1. The trial court erred in holding that the substantive law of Michigan controls this action.
. "2. The trial court erred in granting defendants Cole and Fowler's Motion for Summary Judgment."
. The trial court's choice-of-law is subject to a December novo standard of review by this court. Callis v. Zilba (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 696, 698, citing, Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Leeper (March. 13, 1998), Lucas App. No. L-97-1265. When faced with a choice-of-law query, there is a presumption that the law of the place of the injury controls unless another jurisdiction has a more significant relationship to the lawsuit. Kurent v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 242, 246. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "a trial court must weigh the substantial governmental interest of the states concerned in order to reach a fair and equitable result." Morgan v. Biro Mfg. Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 339, 341, citing, Fox v. Morrison Motor Freight (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 193. This analysis is to be done on a case-by-case basis. See Id. at 340.
. In determining the choice-of-law, the court must take into account the following factors, which are to be evaluated according to their relative importance to the case, "(1) the place of the injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; (4) the place where the relationship between the parties, if any, is located; and (5) any factors under Section 6 [of 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws 10] which the court may deem relevant to the litigation." Morgan at 342. Section 6 of 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Conflict of Laws 10, as quoted by Morgan, provides as follows:
. "(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its own state on choice of law.
. "(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include:
. "(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems,
. "(b) the relevant policies of the forum,
. "(c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,
. "(d) the protection of justified expectations,
. "(e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|