Hernandez v. Burger
| Decision Date | 26 February 1980 |
| Citation | 102 Cal.App.3d 795,162 Cal.Rptr. 564 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ismael HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Joseph BURGER et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 21338. |
Plaintiff Ismael Hernandez (hereafter plaintiff), a Mexican resident and citizen, suffered personal injuries on February 2, 1975, when he was struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Steven Burger and owned by defendant Joseph Burger (hereafter defendants) in the State of Baja California, Mexico. Defendants were and are California residents and citizens of the United States.
On January 9, 1976, plaintiff instituted this action for damages against defendants in the Orange County Superior Court. The trial court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, determining that the Mexican law of damages, which placed a limit of $2,000 on plaintiff's recovery, was applicable to the action. Thereupon the parties entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2,000, reciting that plaintiff would have recovered substantially more under California's law of damages. The parties also agreed that the stipulation for judgment was not to prejudice either party's right to appeal. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, contending that the trial court erred in determining that the Mexican law of damages rather than that of California was applicable to the case.
For purposes of appeal, liability on the part of defendants is admitted. The sole question, therefore, is whether California's law of damages or Mexico's should be applied to measure the recovery of a resident and citizen of Mexico whose injuries and damages resulted from an accident in Mexico caused by a vehicle owned by and driven by citizens of the United States who are residents of the State of California.
The parties recognize that questions of choice of law are determined in California by the "governmental interest analysis" stemming from the landmark decision in Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 63 Cal.Rptr. 493, 432 P.2d 727. Under the "governmental interest analysis" approach, the forum " 'must search to find the proper law to apply based upon the interests of the litigants and the involved states.' " (Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 22 Cal.3d 157, 161, 148 Cal.Rptr. 867, 869, 583 P.2d 721, 723, quoting from Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 553, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727; Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 574, 579-580, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666.) In undertaking this determination, the competing interests of the parties and the several states or countries 1 are ascertained in relation to the specific issue in controversy. (Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, 16 Cal.3d 313, 316, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719; Hurtado v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 579-580, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666; Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 555, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727; Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.3d 501, 518-519, 132 Cal.Rptr. 541.)
Plaintiff's position is: First, the forum will, even in cases involving foreign interests, apply the rule of decision of the forum as a matter of course unless it is demonstrated that the foreign rule of decision will serve an interest or policy of the foreign state so that it is an appropriate rule of decision for the forum to apply to the case before it. (Hurtado v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 581, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666; Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d at p. 522, 132 Cal.Rptr. 541; see also Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 317-318, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719.) Second, as a concomitant, it is the burden of the advocate of the foreign rule of decision to show that the foreign jurisdiction has some policy or interest that would be furthered by the application of its rule. And, finally, defendants have failed to show that Mexico has any legitimate interest in the application of its limitation of damages law inasmuch as (a) the sole interest of a state or country in so limiting damages is to protect resident defendants against overwhelming economic burdens (see Hurtado v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 580-581, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666; Reich v. Purcell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 556, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727), and (b) defendants in the case at bench were not and are not Mexican residents but, rather, citizens of the United States and residents of the State of California.
Plaintiff's position is unsound. He is mistaken in his assertion that no legitimate interest of Mexico would be furthered by the application of its rule of damages to the case at bench. He is also mistaken in his conclusion that an interest or policy of the State of California would be served by application of its law of damages.
The modern authorities recognize that in many so-called conflict of laws situations, there is no real conflict, only a "false conflict," because, although the law in the several pertinent jurisdictions may be different, one or more of the jurisdictions has no legitimate interest in having its law applied to the case. As the court explained in Hurtado : (11 Cal.3d at p. 580, 114 Cal.Rptr. at p. 110, 522 P.2d at p. 670, fn. omitted; accord: Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co., supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 163, 148 Cal.Rptr. 867, 583 P.2d 721; Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 317, 318-319, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719; see Horowitz, The Law of Choice of Law in California A Restatement (1974) 21 UCLA L.Rev. 719, 723, 729-736.)
There is no question but that the laws of California and Mexico governing the damages recoverable in a case such as this are different. California's Civil Code section 3333 permits recovery of "the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused . . . ." The law of Mexico limits recovery to the amount of the injured party's medical and rehabilitative expenses and lost wages at the minimum wage rate. (Civ. Code of the State of Baja California (Norte), art. 1793; Le Federal del Trabajo, arts. 487, 491 and 495.) However, in the case at bench no legitimate interest or policy of the State of California would be served by the application of its unlimited damages rule because the plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Mexico, the accident occurred in Mexico, and the only connection California has with the case is that the defendants happen to be California residents and that California is the forum.
Plaintiff relies heavily on Hurtado v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 574, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 522 P.2d 666, for both the proposition that application of the domestic law of California as the rule of decision in the case at bench would serve a legitimate California interest or policy and the proposition that no legitimate interest of Mexico would be served by the application of its limited damages law. Insofar as the interest of the State of California is concerned, plaintiff's reliance on Hurtado is entirely unjustified. As plaintiff correctly points out, Hurtado was a "false conflict" case. The court determined that no interest or policy of Mexico would be served by application of its limited damages rule but that there was a policy or interest of the State of California to be served by the application of its rule. Identifying the California interest, the court stated: "Therefore when the defendant is a resident of California and the tortious conduct giving rise to the wrongful death action occurs Here, California's deterrent policy of full compensation is clearly advanced by application of its own law." (11 Cal.3d at p. 584, 114 Cal.Rptr. at p. 112, 522 P.2d at p. 672, emphasis added.) In the case at bench, by contrast, the accident occurred in Mexico, and California has no legitimate interest in the possible deterrent effect of its unlimited recovery rule on conduct in Mexico.
Further, since plaintiff was and is a resident and citizen of Mexico, California has no legitimate concern in extending its unlimited damages rule to him to avoid his becoming a ward of the state. It thus becomes clear that California has no interest at all in applying its law of damages to this case. The holding with respect to California's interest in Reich v. Purcell, supra, is directly in point. In Reich the law of three states was potentially involved. The accident occurred in Missouri; the decedent and the plaintiffs resided in Ohio; and the defendant was a resident of California. (See 67 Cal.2d at pp. 552, 555-556, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 727.) Notwithstanding the fact that California was the forum and that the plaintiffs had become California residents after the accident, the court held that no legitimate interest of the State of California would be served by applying California's own domestic rule of damages. (67 Cal.2d at pp. 555-556, 63 Cal.Rptr. 31, 432 P.2d 719.)
The absence of any legitimate California interest to be served by application of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...respect to regulating or affecting conduct within its borders, the place of the wrong has the predominant interest." Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal. App. 3d 795, 802 (1980). California considers the geographic location of the omission or where the misrepresentations were communicated to the c......
-
Bartel v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., Case Nos.: 18-CV-537 JLS (JLB)
...the other has none, there is no real problem; clearly the law of the interested state should be applied." Hernandez v. Burger , 102 Cal. App. 3d 795, 799, 162 Cal.Rptr. 564 (1980) (internal citations omitted).a. California's Interest Plaintiffs allege GE's Boiling Water Reactors contained n......
-
Mujica v. AirScan Inc.
...(Dominican Republic law, rather than California law, applied to tort and worker's compensation claims); Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal.App.3d 795, 804, 162 Cal.Rptr. 564 (1980) (Mexican law, rather than California law, applied to personal-injury claims arising out of auto accident in Mexico).......
-
Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
...who use its roadways, absent some other compelling interest to be served by applying California law."); Hernandez v. Burger , 102 Cal.App.3d 795, 162 Cal. Rptr. 564, 568 (1980) ("It is true that the place of the wrong is no longer treated as a controlling factor where application of the law......
-
Chapter § 1.03 TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME
...Misc.2d 878, 520 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1987).[459] Id., 137 Misc.2d at 891-892.[460] Id., 137 Misc.2d at 892. See also, Hernandez v. Burger, 102 Cal. App. 3d 795, 162, Cal. Rptr. 564, 566 (1980) (auto accident in Mexico; Mexican law applied on issue of damages). "There is no question but that the l......
-
Choice of Law Symposium Transcript Featuring: David Currie, Robert Felix, Herma Hill Kay, Marjorie F. Knowles, Bruce Posnak, John Rees, Jr., and Jack L. Sammons
...Superior Court of Sacramento County [522 P.2d 666 (Cal. 1974)], which we're going to get to later on, is found in Hernandez v. Burger [162 Cal. Rptr. 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)], a case of a California visitor to Mexico who injured someone in Mexico. The Mexican plaintiff would not be allowed......