Hurtado v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 31 May 1974
• Citation: 11 Cal.3d 574,114 Cal.Rptr. 106,522 P.2d 666
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 522 P.2d 666 Manuel Cid HURTADO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; Maria de Jesus Flores de HURTADO et al., Real Parties in Interest. Sac. 8005. In Bank

Page 106

114 Cal.Rptr. 106

11 Cal.3d 574, 522 P.2d 666

Manuel Cid HURTADO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent;

Maria de Jesus Flores de HURTADO et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Sac. 8005.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

May 31, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1974.

Johnson, Greve, Clifford & Diepenbrock, Sacramento, Johnson, Greve & Clifford and Robert Lea, Sacramento, for petitioner.

Leonard G. Ratner, Los Angeles, as amicus curiae for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Alfonso Z. Gonzalez, Sacramento, for real parties in interest.

Gerald J. Adler and Crow, Lytle, Schleh & Gilwee, Sacramento, as amici curiae for real parties in interest.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

In this proceeding, petitioner Manuel Cid Hurtado seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent superior court to vacate its ruling that the applicable measure of damages in the underlying action for wrongful death was that prescribed by California law without any maximum limitation, rather than that prescribed by the law of Mexico which limits the amount of recovery. We have concluded that the trial court correctly chose the law of California. We deny the writ.

Real parties in interest, the widow and children of Antonio Hurtado (hereafter plaintiffs) commenced against Manuel Hurtado and Jack Rexius (hereafter defendants) the underlying action for damages for wrongful death, arising out of an automobile accident occurring in Sacramento County on January 19, 1969. Plaintiffs' decedent was riding in an automobile owned and operated by his cousin, defendant Manuel Hurtado. Defendant Hurtado's vehicle, while being driven along a two-lane paved road, collided with a pickup truck, owned and operated by defendant Rexius, which was parked partially on the side of the road and partially on the pavement on which defendant Hurtado was driving. Upon impact, the truck in turn collided with an automobile parked in front of it, owned by Rexius and occupied by his son. Decedent died as a result of the collision.

At all material times plaintiffs were, and and now are residents and domiciliaries of the State of Zacatecas, Mexico. Decedent, at the time of the accident, was also a resident and domiciliary of the same place and was in California temporarily and only as a visitor. All three vehicles involved in the accident were registered in California; Manuel Hurtado, Jack Rexius and the latter's son were all residents of California. Both defendants denied liability.

Defendant Hurtado moved respondent court for a separate trial of the issue whether the measure of damages was to be applied according to the law of California or the law of Mexico. The motion was granted and at the ensuing trial of this issue the court took judicial notice (Evid.Code, §§ 452, 453) of the relevant Mexican law prescribing a maximum limitation of damages for wrongful death. ¹ As a result it was established that the maximum amount recoverable under Mexican law would be 24,334 pesos or $1,946.72 at the applicable exchange rate of 12.5 pesos to the dollar. After submission of the issue on briefs, the trial court announced its intended decision (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 232) and filed a memorandum opinion, ruling in substance that it would apply a measure of damages in accordance with California law and not Mexican law. Defendant Hurtado then sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to vacate its ruling and to issue a ruling that Mexico's limitation of damages for wrongful death be applied. The Court of Appeal granted an alternative writ and thereafter issued a peremptory writ of mandate so directing the trial court. We granted a hearing in this court upon the petition on plaintiffs.

It is clear that mandate is an appropriate remedy to review the proceedings below. 'Although it is well established that mandamus cannot be issued to control a court's discretion, in unusual circumstances the writ will lie where, under the facts, that discretion can be exercised in only one way.' (Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 851, 92 Cal.Rptr. 179, 185, 479 P.2d 379, 385; Mannheim v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 678, 685, 91 Cal.Rptr. 585, 478 P.2d 17; Hilmer v. Superior Court (1934) 220 Cal. 71, 73, 29 P.2d 175.) Here the facts have been stipulated to and are not in dispute. The sole issue is a question of law as to which measure of damages should be applied. The trial court is under a legal duty to apply the proper law and may be directed to perform that duty by writ of mandate. (Babb v. Superior Court, Supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 851, 92 Cal.Rptr. 179, 479 P.2d 379; Mannheim v. Superior Court, Supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 685, 91 Cal.Rptr. 585, 478 P.2d 17.) The absence of another adequate remedy was determined by the Court of Appeal when it granted the alternative writ. (Mannheim v. Superior Court, Supra, at p. 686, 91 Cal.Rptr. 585, 478 P.2d 17; County of Sacramento v. Hickman (1967) 66 Cal.2d 841, 845, 59 Cal.Rptr. 609, 428 P.2d 593.)

In the landmark opinion authored by former Chief Justice Traynor for a unanimous court in Reich v. Purcell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 551, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727 (see Symposium, Comments on Reich v. Purcell (1968) 15 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 551--654), we renounced the prior rule, adhered to by courts for many years, that in tort actions the law of the place of the wrong was the applicable law in a California forum regardless of the issues before the court. We adopted in its place a rule requiring an analysis of the respective interests of the states involved (governmental interest approach) the objective of which is 'to determine the law that most appropriately applies to the issue involved.' (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, at p. 554, 63 Cal.Rptr. at p. 34, 432 P.2d at p. 730.) ²

The issue involved in the matter before us is the measure of damages in the underlying action for wrongful death. Two states or governments are implicated: (1) California--the place of the wrong, the place of defendants' domicile and residence, and the forum; and (2) Mexico--the domicile and residence of both plaintiffs and their decedent.

The fact that two states are involved does not in itself indicate that there is a 'conflict of laws' or 'choice of law' problem. There is obviously no problem where the laws of the two states are identical. (Comment, False Conflicts, 55 Cal.L.Rev. 74, 76; Cavers, The Choice of Law Process (1965) pp. 89--90). Here, however, the laws of California and Mexico are not identical. Mexico limits recovery by the survivors of the decedent in a wrongful death action to 24,334 pesos (see fn. 1, Ante, and accompanying text). California provides that the heirs of the decedent are entitled to recover such sum, as under all the circumstances of the case, will be just compensation for the pecuniary loss which each heir has suffered by reason of the death of the decedent. (Bond v. United Railroads (1911) 159 Cal. 270, 276--279, 113 P. 366; Valente v. Sierra Railway Co. (1910) 158 Cal. 412, 418--419, 111 P. 95; Redfield v. Oakland C.S. Ry. Co. (1895) 110 Cal. 277, 285, 42 P. 822, 1063; Code Civ.Proc. § 377.)

Although the two potentially concerned states have different laws, there is still no problem in choosing the applicable rule of law where only one of the states has an interest in having its law applied. (Comment, False Conflicts, 55 Cal.L.Rev. at p. 77; Cavers, op. cit. Supra, pp. 89--90.) 'When one of two states related to a case has a legitimate interest in the application of its law and policy and the other has none, there is no real problem; clearly the law of the interested state should be applied.' (Currie, Selected Essays on Conflicts of Laws (1963) p. 189.) ³

The interest of a state in a tort rule limiting damages for wrongful death is to protect defendants from excessive financial burdens or exaggerated claims. (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, 67 Cal.3d at p. 556, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727; Cavers, op. cit. Supra, at p. 151.) As stated in Reich this interest 'to avoid the imposition of excessive financial burdens on (defendants) . . . is also primarily local.' (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, at p. 556, 63 Cal.Rptr. at p. 35, 432 P.2d at p. 731; Kay, Comments on Reich v. Purcell, 15 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 584, 591--592); that is, a state by enacting a limitation on damages is seeking to protect its residents from the imposition of these excessive financial burdens. Such a policy 'does not reflect a preference that widows and orphans should be denied full recovery.' (Cavers, op. cit. Supra, at p. 151.) Since it is the plaintiffs and not the defendants who are the Mexican residents in this case, Mexico has no interest in applying its limitation of damages--Mexico has no defendant residents to protect and has no interest in denying full recovery to its residents injured by nonMexican defendants.

As the forum, California 'can only apply its own law' (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, at p. 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727). When the forum undertakes to resolve a choice-of-law problem presented to it by the litigants, it does not choose between foreign law and its own law, but selects the appropriate rule of decision for the forum to apply as its law to the case before it. (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, at p. 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727.) Therefore, when the forum state undertakes its 'search to find the proper law to apply based upon the interests of the litigants and the involved states' (Reich v. Purcell, Supra, at p. 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. at p. 33, 432 P.2d at p. 729), it is understood that '(n)ormally, even in cases involving foreign elements, the court should be expected, as a matter of course, to apply the rule of decision found in the law of the forum.' (Currie, op. cit. Supra, at p. 183.) 'Only 'when it is suggested that the law of a foreign state should furnish the rule of decision' must the forum determine the governmental policy of its own and the suggested foreign laws, preparatory to assessing whether...