Gutierrez v. Collins
583 S.W.2d 312, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 295, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 417 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In tort cases involving a conflict of laws, Texas courts will apply the law of the state with the 'most significant relationship' to the occurrence and the parties, abandoning the traditional rule of lex loci delicti. Additionally, Texas courts will no longer dismiss cases under the dissimilarity doctrine, which previously barred actions based on foreign laws deemed too different from Texas law.
Facts:
- Gutierrez and Collins were both residents of El Paso, Texas.
- On December 25, 1973, Gutierrez and Collins were involved in an automobile accident in Zaragosa, State of Chihuahua, Mexico.
- Gutierrez alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of Collins.
- As a result of the collision, Gutierrez suffered personal injuries for which he sought damages.
Procedural Posture:
- Gutierrez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Collins in a Texas trial court.
- Collins filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the case should be dismissed under the dissimilarity doctrine because the accident occurred in Mexico.
- The trial court sustained Collins's plea and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.
- Gutierrez, as appellant, appealed to the court of civil appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The court of civil appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with Collins as appellee.
- Gutierrez, as petitioner, was granted a writ of error by the Supreme Court of Texas (the highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a personal injury lawsuit between two Texas residents arising from an accident in Mexico, should a Texas court abandon the traditional lex loci delicti rule and the dissimilarity doctrine in favor of the 'most significant relationship' test to determine the applicable substantive law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sam D. Johnson
Yes, a Texas court should abandon the doctrines of lex loci delicti and dissimilarity in favor of the 'most significant relationship' test for tort conflicts cases. The common law rule of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of the wrong) is overruled as it is an outdated, rigid rule that often produces harsh and arbitrary results in modern society. The court holds that the controlling statute, Article 4678, does not mandate lex loci delicti for common law causes of action, leaving the court free to change the common law. The court adopts the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts, which provides a more rational and flexible approach. Additionally, the court abolishes the dissimilarity doctrine, reasoning that its original justifications—difficulty in accessing and interpreting foreign law and public policy concerns—are no longer valid, as Texas courts are capable of applying foreign law and the differences in Mexican law are not contrary to Texas public policy.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifted Texas's approach to conflict of laws in tort cases, aligning it with the modern trend followed by a majority of other states. By replacing the rigid, territory-based lex loci delicti rule with the flexible, policy-based 'most significant relationship' test, the court prioritized fairness and the interests of the forum state over predictability. The simultaneous abolition of the dissimilarity doctrine greatly expanded access to Texas courts for torts occurring abroad, particularly in Mexico, ensuring that Texas residents are not deprived of a judicial forum simply because a foreign country's laws differ from Texas's.
