(dissenting).
Because I believe that protecting the interests of the injured party is more important than protecting the interests of the police officer and the municipality, I respectfully dissent.
In a factually similar case, Biscoe v. Arlington County, 738 F.2d 1352 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1159, 105 S.Ct. 909, 83 L.Ed.2d 923 (1985), an innocent bystander who worked in the District of Columbia but lived in a Maryland suburb sued a Virginia county and one of its police officers for injuries he sustained due to an alleged negligent high-speed police pursuit of a suspected bank robber into the District of Columbia.
The court noted that there was a true conflict of law — under Virginia law, counties are fully immune from suit in tort, but under District of Columbia law, the District enjoys immunity from suit only if the actions in question were committed in the exercise of a “discretionary” function. Id. at 1357. The District of Columbia uses the “governmental interest analysis” approach to resolve choice of law questions. Id. at 1360. That approach requires a court to evaluate the policies underlying the applicable conflicting laws and determine which jurisdiction’s policy would be most advanced by having its law applied to the facts of the case. Id. Where each state would have an interest in application of its own law to the facts, a true conflict exists and the law of the jurisdiction with the stronger interest applies. Id.
The court observed that the immunity of Virginia’s counties reflects the state’s concern for the financial integrity of its counties (which, it noted, “can amply be met with the purchase of liability insurance”), as well as the concern that the prospect of liability will deter police officers from proper performance of their duties.1 Id. The court noted that the concern for deterrence was “weak, if existent” and it was only left with Virginia’s concern for the economic well-being of its counties. Id. at 1361. The court observed that this concern was not compelling, since it was limited to the rare tort suit arising out of acts outside Virginia, for which the county could purchase liability insurance. Id.
The court observed that a governmental entity’s waiver of immunity signifies its dual interests in deterrence of potential tortfea-sors and compensation of injured parties. Id. The court stated that “as the site of most of the relevant conduct and all the injury” the District had a strong interest in *154deterring such conduct. Id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 emt. d (1971)). The court noted that the defendant’s acts created the precise danger to life and property that local regulations sought to prevent, and liability would discourage such acts. Id. The court also noted that the compensatory policy has the greatest relevance when the mishap occurs in the District and when District residents are plaintiffs.2 Id. The court also relied on prior District of Columbia precedent that “evidenced an unwillingness to embrace Virginia’s sovereign immunity rules.” Id. at 1362.
The court concluded that the District of Columbia’s immunity rules would apply or Virginia would have to fashion an exception based on its own policies. Id.
In addition, as recognized by the court in Biscoe, a determination that the immunity law of the state in which the accident occurred would be consistent with the Restatement of Conflict of Laws. The Restatement provides:
In the majority of instances, the actor’s conduct, which may consist either of action or non-action, and the personal injury will occur in the same state. In such instances, the local law of this state will usually be applied to determine most issues involving the tort. This state will usually be the state of dominant interest, since the two principal elements of the tort, namely, conduct and injury, occurred within its territo-' ry. The state where the defendant’s conduct occurs has the dominant interest in regulating it and in determining whether it is tortious in character. Similarly, the state where the injury occurs will, usually at least, have the dominant interest in determining whether the interest affected is entitled to legal protection.
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Law § 146 cmt. d (1971) (citation omitted).
I believe that in this case, application of Minnesota immunity law would subvert rather than sustain North Dakota’s interests where Minnesota’s interests are weaker. See Jepson v. General Casualty Co., 513 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Minn.1994) (an aspect of the “maintenance of interstate order” is to maintain a coherent legal system in which “courts of different states strive to sustain, rather than subvert, each other’s interests in areas where their own interests are less strong”). As one commentator stated:
Deference to sister state law in situations in which the sister state’s substantial concern with the problem gives it a real interest in having its law applied, even though the forum state also has an identifiable interest, will sometimes usefully further this aspect of the law’s total task [interstate order]. * * * It must be recognized that if nearly all of a transaction’s significant contacts are with one state (X), yet the forum state (F) applies its own law to the transaction despite its lesser contacts, resentment in X may induce later retaliation in kind. Avoidance of the interstate friction that can develop from this sort of retaliatory comity is a proper choice-of-law objective.
Robert A. Leflar, Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law, 41 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 267, 286-87 (1966).
I can conceive of no situation more likely to produce such friction than the perception on the part of citizens of one state that police officers of a neighboring state (who unlike any other citizens of the state, are given the discretion of using force up to deadly force) can come to their state and endanger life and limb without fear of liability. Thus, I would hold that the immunity law of the state in which the alleged tortious conduct occurred and the residence of the injured party, North Dakota, should apply in this case.
. The court stated these interests were considerably weakened because: (1) Virginia police officers are not immune from liability in this context, and their personal amenability to suit accomplishes at least some of the deterrence that it is feared would result if the county were liable as well; (2) under District of Columbia law, the county is liable only for negligent performance of nondiscretionaiy acts, which by definition leave the governmental actor little choice on procedure — the only actions deterred would be violations of a state’s orders to its employees; (3) much as the prospect of liability might thwart discretionary decision-making, it may also deter misconduct; and (4) the State of Virginia had recently waived its immunity from suit in tort in certain cases, though it limited the amount recoverable. Id. at 1360-61.
. The injured party in Biscoe lived in Maryland but worked in the District of Columbia. The court cited authority recognizing the District's unique interest in protecting persons who lived in the surrounding suburbs and worked in the District. Biscoe, 738 F.2d at 1361.