## Facts

- Two tractor-trailers collided on Interstate 75 in Monroe County, Michigan, on August 14, 1989.
- Plaintiffs were Ohio residents; the injured driver operated an Ohio-licensed truck.
- Defendants were Ontario entities and an Ontario driver employed by an Ontario trucking company; the other truck was owned/leased by Ontario corporations.
- Plaintiffs filed a Michigan negligence action on September 5, 1991, more than two years after the accident but within three years.
- Michigan’s negligence limitations period was three years; Ohio’s and Ontario’s were two years.
- Defendants sought dismissal as time-barred, arguing that Ohio or Ontario law governed the limitations issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations applies to a Michigan-accident tort suit between non-Michigan parties, or whether Ohio’s or Ontario’s two-year limitations periods apply under Michigan choice-of-law rules.
2. Whether Ohio or Ontario had a sufficient governmental interest in applying its limitations period to displace Michigan’s default application of forum law.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and held that Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations governed.
- The Court concluded neither Ohio nor Ontario had an interest in applying its two-year limitations period to bar the action in Michigan.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under Michigan law.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan generally applies lex fori: Michigan law governs unless a foreign jurisdiction has an interest in applying its law to the specific issue and Michigan’s interests do not require Michigan law.
- A plaintiff’s residence, standing alone, is insufficient to establish another state’s governmental interest for choice-of-law purposes on limitations.
- In assessing a foreign jurisdiction’s interest, Michigan may consider whether that jurisdiction’s own conflict rules would point back to Michigan law for an accident occurring in Michigan.
- When no foreign governmental interest is materially advanced by applying a shorter foreign limitations period, Michigan’s limitations period applies to a Michigan-sited tort.

## Conclusion

Because the accident occurred in Michigan and neither Ohio nor Ontario had a substantial governmental interest in applying its shorter statute of limitations, Michigan’s three-year limitations period controlled, making the plaintiffs’ filing timely and requiring reversal of summary disposition.


Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Serv., Ltd., 454 Mich. 274, 562 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. 1997)