Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Richards

• Decision Date: 30 May 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 627
• Parties: TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. RICHARDS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

4 S.W. 627

TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. RICHARDS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 30, 1887.

Appeal from Grayson county.

Brown & Gunter, for appellant. G. G. Randall, W. W. Wilkins, and Woods & Cunningham, for appellee.

STAYTON, J.

This action was brought by Grace Richards, a minor, through her next friend, to recover damages for an injury done to her father in the state of Louisiana, from which, in that state, he died within a few hours after he received the hurt. The action is brought to recover such damages as the father of the plaintiff might have recovered had his death not resulted from the injury, and not to recover damages for injury resulting to the plaintiff from the death of her father, which, under the statutes of this and many of the other states, may be recovered by those sustaining given relations to a person whose death results from the negligent or wrongful act of another. The statute in force in the state of Louisiana at the time the father of the plaintiff was injured and died was pleaded, and was as follows: "Every act whatever of man, that causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it. The right of this action shall survive, in case of death, in favor of the minor children and widow of deceased, or either of them, and, in default of these, to the surviving father and mother, or either of them, for the space of one year from the death. Every person is responsible for the damage he occasions, not merely by his acts, but by his negligence, his imprudence, or want of skill. We are responsible not only for the damages occasioned by our own act, but that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or other things we have in custody." It is alleged that this provision of the Louisiana law applies to corporations, and of this there can be no reasonable doubt. It is further alleged that the persons in whose favor the cause of action survives, under the statute, may recover such damages as the person injured might have recovered had death not ensued, and none other.

There can be no doubt of the correctness of this construction of the Louisiana statute. That statute does not give a cause of action to the person immediately injured where none existed before; and the first clause simply asserts a rule well recognized, we may say, by the laws of all civilized nations, under which the injured person would be given relief by the courts of any country having jurisdiction over the person of the offending party. The second clause of the statute, however, makes this cause of action to survive the death of the injured person, and subrogates the persons sustaining the relationships named to the right which the injured person had during his life to enforce that cause of action. This is illustrated by the decisions made before and since the second clause of the statute was added. Hubgh v. Railroad Co., 6 La. Ann. 495; Hermann v. Railroad Co., 11 La. Ann. 22; Earhart v. Railroad Co., 17 La. Ann. 244; Frank v. Railroad Co., 20 La. Ann. 26; Van Amburg v. Railroad Co., 37 La. Ann. 651. The sole right the appellee has to enforce the cause of action which accrued to her father is based on the statute of Louisiana. That statute confers a right which before its passage did not exist even in that state, as may be seen by an examination of the cases to which we have referred. As that statute cannot be operative here, can the right which it gives be enforced in this state?

There are three classes of cases in which the question may arise as to whether a right given solely by the statutes of one state will be enforced in the courts of another. (1) Cases in which a right given by the statute of one state is sought to be enforced in the court of another, in which laws exist giving a like right under the same facts; and in this class of cases, while there is some conflict of decision, it seems to be generally held that courts of the latter state will recognize and enforce the right given by the statutes of another state. Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U.S. 17; Boyce v. Railroad Co., 63 Iowa, 72, 18 N. W. Rep. 673; Leonard v. Navigation Co., 84 N. Y. 48. The facts of the case before us do not bring it...