Hurtado v. Superior Court
11 Cal. 3d 574, 522 P.2d 666, 114 Cal. Rptr. 106 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a choice-of-law analysis for a tort case, a court will apply its own state's law when it is the only state with a governmental interest in the application of its law to a specific issue, creating a "false conflict."
Facts:
- Antonio Hurtado, a resident and domiciliary of Zacatecas, Mexico, was temporarily visiting California.
- On January 19, 1969, Antonio Hurtado was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by his cousin, Manuel Cid Hurtado, a California resident.
- While driving in Sacramento County, California, Manuel Hurtado's vehicle collided with a truck owned and operated by Jack Rexius, also a California resident.
- Antonio Hurtado died as a result of the collision.
- All vehicles involved in the accident were registered in California.
- The decedent's widow and children, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, were all residents and domiciliaries of Zacatecas, Mexico.
Procedural Posture:
- Antonio Hurtado's widow and children sued Manuel Hurtado and Jack Rexius for wrongful death in California Superior Court (trial court).
- Defendant Manuel Hurtado moved for a separate trial on the issue of which jurisdiction's law should govern the measure of damages.
- The Superior Court granted the motion and ruled that California law, with its unlimited damages, would apply.
- Manuel Hurtado (petitioner) sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal to compel the trial court to apply Mexico's law limiting damages.
- The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate, ordering the trial court to apply Mexican law.
- The plaintiffs (real parties in interest) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of California for a hearing to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
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 wrongful death action brought in a California court, where the decedent and plaintiffs are Mexican residents but the defendants are California residents and the tortious conduct occurred in California, does Mexico's law limiting damages apply instead of California's law providing for unlimited recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. When a foreign state's law limiting wrongful death damages is designed to protect its resident defendants and the defendants in the case are not its residents, that state has no interest in applying its law. Therefore, California, as the forum and the state with an interest in deterring tortious conduct within its borders, will apply its own law providing for unlimited recovery. The court employs a "governmental interest analysis" to determine that this case presents a "false conflict." Mexico's interest in limiting damages is to protect resident defendants from excessive financial burdens; since the defendants are Californians, Mexico has no interest in applying its limitation. Conversely, California has a significant interest in deterring wrongful conduct within its borders, an interest which is advanced by allowing full recovery for wrongful deaths caused by its residents. Because California is the only jurisdiction with an interest in the application of its law to the issue of damages, California law applies.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the "governmental interest analysis" for choice-of-law issues established in Reich v. Purcell. It solidifies the concept of a "false conflict," where one interested jurisdiction's law is applied because the other potentially concerned jurisdiction has no actual interest in having its law applied to the specific facts. The court's decision carefully distinguishes between a state's interest in providing compensation for its residents (which California lacked here) and its interest in deterring wrongful conduct within its borders (which California possessed). This analytical separation is a key precedential development, guiding future courts to dissect state interests with precision rather than applying them broadly.
Unlock the full brief for Hurtado v. Superior Court