194 U.S. 120, 126 (1904)
William H. Slater, a resident of Texas, was employed by the Mexican National Railroad Company, a Colorado corporation operating a railroad from Texas to the City of Mexico, as a switchman on its road.1
Slater was killed through the defendant’s negligence while coupling two freight cars at Nuevo Laredo in Mexico.2 The widow and children of Slater, all citizens and residents of Texas, brought an action in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Texas to recover damages for the death.3
The plaintiffs set forth the laws of Mexico in their petition.4 The defendant demurred on the ground that the cause of action given by the Mexican laws was not transitory.5 The demurrer was overruled and the defendant excepted.6 A similar objection was taken by plea setting forth additional sections of the Mexican statutes.7 A demurrer to this plea was sustained subject to exception.8
At trial the judge instructed the jury that damages were to be measured by the money value of the life of the deceased to the widow and children under Texas Revised Statutes Article 3027.9 The jury returned a verdict for a lump sum apportioned to the several plaintiffs.10 The defendant had offered the deposition of a Mexican lawyer as to the Mexican law, but the deposition was rejected.11 The plaintiffs relied on an agreed translation of the Mexican Penal Code Book 2 that included Article 301 defining civil liability as the obligation to make restitution, reparation, indemnization, and payment of judicial expenses, and Article 304 addressing reparation for damages to the injured party or family.12
The agreed translation also included specific provisions for homicide under Articles 311, 318, and 319 that addressed support for the widow, descendants, and ascendants.13 The obligation lasted during the time the deceased might have lived according to a life table but was subject to cessation upon marriage, the minor children reaching majority, or other circumstances in which the deceased would no longer be required to continue support.14 The case was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judgment was reversed and the action ordered to be dismissed.15
Whether the law of the place where the negligent act occurred determines not only the existence but also the extent of any resulting obligation?16
The law of the place of the act determines not merely the existence of the obligation but equally determines its extent.17
Yes. The facts establish that William H. Slater was killed through negligence at Nuevo Laredo in Mexico while coupling cars for the defendant railroad.18 The plaintiffs relied on the Mexican Penal Code provisions, including Articles 301 and 304, to create the civil liability.19 Because the obligation arises solely from Mexican law, that law fixes both the existence and the measure of recovery, including the specific homicide provisions in Articles 311, 318, and 319 that limit recovery to periodic support payments.20
Application of Texas Revised Statutes Article 3027 to award a lump sum therefore violates the governing principle that the foreign law controls the extent of liability.21
Mexican law governs both the existence and the extent of the obligation arising from the death in Mexico.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Harlan And Mr. Justice Peckham
Chief Justice Fuller, joined by Justices Harlan and Peckham, dissented from the majority's holding that Mexican law controls the extent of liability.23 He maintained that the method of arriving at and distributing damages pertains to procedure or remedy regulated by the law of the forum.24 Both Texas and Mexico recognize a right of recovery for wrongful death.25
The defendant corporation was domiciled in Texas and Slater died in Texas from injuries received in Mexico.26 Fuller argued that the dissimilarities between the Mexican periodic-support scheme and the Texas lump-sum measure did not defeat recovery. The Texas jury's lump-sum award under local law should stand because the extent of damages does not enter into the definition of the right enforced.27
He relied on authorities such as Scott v. Lord Seymour and Phillips v. Eyre holding that an action lies when the act is wrongful under the laws of both jurisdictions.28
Whether a federal court sitting in Texas may enforce a claim arising under Mexican wrongful death statutes by awarding a lump sum verdict measured under Texas law when the Mexican statutes provide for periodic support payments subject to modification?29
When the foreign statute creates a liability conditioned on periodic payments subject to modification upon marriage, majority, or changed circumstances, a court may not substitute a lump-sum verdict under local law.30
No. The Mexican statutes require a decree analogous to alimony, with payments lasting only during the time the deceased might have lived according to a life table and subject to cessation upon marriage of beneficiaries, children reaching majority, or other circumstances where support would no longer be required.3132 The facts show that the trial court instructed the jury under Texas Revised Statutes Article 3027 to award a lump sum apportioned among the plaintiffs.33 Substituting such a verdict for the modifiable periodic payments required by Mexican law exceeds the power of a common-law court and denies the defendant the benefit of the limitations imposed by the law creating the obligation.34
A federal court may not enforce the Mexican claim by awarding a lump-sum verdict measured under Texas law.35
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Harlan And Mr. Justice Peckham
Chief Justice Fuller contended that the extent of damages does not enter into any definition of the right enforced or the cause of action permitted to be prosecuted.36 He argued that procedure and remedy are regulated by the law of the forum.37 The dissimilarities between the Mexican periodic-support scheme and the Texas lump-sum measure did not defeat recovery in this case.38
The defendant corporation was domiciled in Texas and the death occurred after the injury produced its fatal result in Texas.39 Fuller concluded that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was unquestionable and that the form of reparation under Mexican law did not bar recovery in Texas between citizens of this country.40
Whether the deposition of a Mexican lawyer concerning the construction and application of Mexican statutes is admissible when an agreed translation of those statutes has been submitted?41
Expert testimony as to the accepted or proper construction of foreign statutes is admissible upon any matter open to reasonable doubt even when an agreed translation has been submitted.42
Yes. The facts show that the defendant offered the deposition of a Mexican lawyer explaining that, absent criminal proceedings, the right of the widow and children depended on a judicial finding that the killing constituted a crime and that the remedy took the form of alimony or pension payable in installments.43 The trial court rejected the deposition on the ground that the agreed translation was the best evidence.44 Because the translation left unresolved whether the liability could be capitalized or whether it was limited to homicide, the expert testimony should have been received to clarify the nature of the Mexican decree.45
The deposition of the Mexican lawyer is admissible to explain the construction and application of the statutes.46