El Paso & Juarez Traction Co. v. Carruth
| Decision Date | 31 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 464-3368.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Parties | EL PASO & JUAREZ TRACTION CO. v. CARRUTH. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by James S. Carruth against El Paso & Juarez Traction Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (208 S. W. 984), and defendant brings error. Reversed, and case dismissed in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission of Appeals.
Davis & Goggin, of El Paso, and Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Jno. T. Hill, of El Paso, for defendant in error.
On January 4, 1916, defendant in error, James S. Carruth, was injured while in the employ of the Tri-State Telephone Company, the accident resulting in injury occurring at Juarez, state of Chihuahua, Mex. The injury resulted by Carruth coming in contact with a guy wire charged with electricity, and the evidence, as tested by the laws of this state, is sufficient to charge plaintiff in error with negligence to such extent as to make it responsible for the injury. Plaintiff in error is a Texas corporation, with its office in the city of El Paso, and is doing business in Mexico under some kind of concession from the state or federal government. The proof is sufficient to show that defendant in error is a citizen of this state.
Suit was brought in the district court of El Paso county, Tex., and, on a trial before a jury, judgment for $2,500 was rendered in favor of defendant in error. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 208 S. W. 984.
The plaintiff in error in the trial court filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, based upon the contention that the laws of the state of Chihuahua and of the republic of Mexico fixing the rights of a party to recovery for an injury of this kind, and the measure of damages, are so dissimilar to the laws of this state in like matters that the courts of this state should not and cannot enforce the same. In support of this contention plaintiff in error pleaded many excerpts from the Penal and Civil Codes of Chihuahua and Mexico. Defendant in error likewise pleaded that certain sections of the Codes were applicable to a case of this kind. Testimony of Mexican lawyers was heard, and much of the written law used in the courts of Mexico was introduced in evidence. On the whole there is but little dispute as to the sections of the laws which are applicable to a case like this, or the interpretation placed thereon by the different Mexican lawyers. As to some of the sections there was a slight diversity of opinion.
In 1917, the Legislature of this state enacted the following law, which is article 7730½ of Vernon's Complete Statutes of 1920 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 7730½):
"That whenever the death or personal injury of a citizen of this state or of the United States, or of any foreign country having equal treaty rights with the United States on behalf of its citizens, has been or may be caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another in any such foreign state or country for which a right to maintain an action and recover damages thereof is given by the statute or law of such foreign state or country, such right or action may be enforced in the courts of this state within the time prescribed for the commencement of such actions by the statute of this state, and the law of the forum shall control in the prosecution and maintenance of such action in the courts of this state in all matters pertaining to the procedure."
This article was construed by this section of the Commission in the case of Jones v. Louisiana Western Railway Company, 243 S. W. 976, and it was there held that it is the cause of action given by the laws of the country where the injury occurred that our courts are authorized to enforce. This statute merely declared what had theretofore been the universal rule, that the lex loci delictus must determine the nature of the cause of action, and the extent of the recovery,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seguros Tepeyac, SA, Compania Mexicana v. Bostrom
...state relating to torts that the courts of Texas cannot undertake to adjudicate the rights of the parties." El Paso & Juarez Traction Co. v. Carruth, Tex. Comm.App.1923, 255 S.W. 159. See Carter v. Tillery, Tex.Civ.App.1953, 257 S.W.2d 465, err. ref., n. r. e. See also Mexican National Rail......
-
Gutierrez v. Collins
...upon that law." One year later the statute was again construed as a codification of the Lex loci delicti rule in El Paso & Juarez Traction Co. v. Carruth, 255 S.W. 159, 159 (Tex.Com.App.1923, jdgmt. "This statute merely declared what had theretofore been the universal rule, that the lex loc......
-
Marmon v. Mustang Aviation, Inc.
...the defenses, if any, available. The case asserted must stand or fall upon that law.' This is again seen in El Paso & Juarez Traction Co. v. Carruth, 255 S.W. 159 (Tex.Com.App.1923): 'This statute merely declared what had theretofore been the universal rule, that the lex loci delictus must ......
-
Flaiz v. Moore
...Tex. 107, 33 S.W. 815, 31 L.R.A. 276; Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. Co., 194 U.S. 120, 24 S.Ct. 581, 48 L.Ed. 900; El Paso & Juarez Traction Co. v. Carruth, Tex.Com.App., 255 S.W. 159; Carter v. Tillery, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W.2d 465; Johnson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Tex.Civ......