Dallas v. Whitney., (CC 563)

• Decision Date: 08 December 1936
• Docket Number: (CC 563)
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Reno Dallas, Doing Business as the Steubenville Plateand Window Glass Company, v. S. P. Whitneyet al.

118 W.Va. 106

Reno Dallas, Doing Business as the Steubenville Plateand Window Glass Company,

v. S. P. Whitneyet al.

(CC 563)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted November 10, 1936.

Decided December 8, 1936.

1. Torts

Where a cause that is put in motion in one jurisdiction results in injury in another, it is the law of the latter juris- diction that controls the substantive rights of the parties. 2. Pleading

A declaration in trespass on the case seeking recovery for negligence must clearly allege that the injuries complained of resulted from the negligence of the defendant.

Case certified from Circuit Court, Brooke County.

Action by Reno Dallas, doing business as the Steubenville Plate & Window Glass Company, against S. P. Whitney and others. Case certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals on an order overruling a demurrer to plaintiff's declaration.

Reversed and remanded.

James S. Kimble and Pinsky & Mahan, for plaintiff. Handlan, Garden & Matthews and Lester C. Hess, for defendants.

Kenna, Judge:

This case is certified from the Circuit Court of Brooke County upon an order overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's declaration. The purpose of the action was to recover damages alleged to have been caused at the plaintiff's storeroom in Steubenville, Ohio, by blasting done in connection with road work in which the defendants were engaged upon State Route No. 2 at or near East Steubenville in Brooke County. The declaration alleges that in connection with their road work, the defendants were using nitroglycerin, dynamite and other explosives and that it became their duty to exercise ordinary care, commensurate with the dangerous character of such explosives, but that they failed to do so; that the nitroglycerin, dynamite and other explosives exploded with such great force and violence that the plate glass of the plaintiff stored in the room occupied by him in Steubenville, Ohio, was destroyed, to the plaintiff's damage. The points arising upon the demurrer and certified to this court are the following:

"First: The declaration is defective in that it fails to show by factual allegation any duty owing by these defendants, or any of them, to the plaintiff herein.

"Second: The declaration is defective in that it fails to allege by factual allegation any breach of any duty owing to this plaintiff by the defendants, or any of them.

"Third: The declaration is defective in that it fails to show that any alleged negligence of these defendants, or any of them, was the cause of the plaintiff's alleged injury.

"Fourth: The declaration is defective in that it alleges negligence generally and fails to specify with reasonable certainty the main or primary act of commission or omission allegedly causing damage to the plaintiff.

"Fifth: The declaration is defective in that it fails to state a cause of action against these defendants, or any of them.

"Sixth: The declaration is defective in that it is vague, indefinite, ambiguous and uncertain.

"Seventh: And for other reasons apparent on the face of the declaration."

In deciding the substantive questions certified, it becomes important first to ascertain whether it is the law of the State of West Virginia or the law of the State of Ohio that governs. The rule seems to be that where a cause is put in motion in one jurisdiction that results in injury in another, the law of the latter jurisdiction is the law by which the substantive rights of the parties are to be determined. Many cases could be cited to sustain this statement (which, of course, is to be distinguished from the question of where suit may be brought), but the case of Cameron v. Vandergriff, 53 Ark. 381, 13 S. W. 1092, is perhaps more nearly in point with the case at bar than any other. In that case, a recovery was sought in the State of Arkansas for injuries which the plaintiff sustained in that state by reason of. being struck by a rock from a blast which occurred in the Indian Territory. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the cause of action arose in the State of Arkansas. This seems to be the rule sustained by clearly preponderating authority. See Beale on Conflict of Laws, Vol. 2, p. 1287, par. 377.2; Goodrich on Conflict of Laws, p. 191; 5 R. C. L., subject Conflict of...