Leo Walton v. Arabian American Oil Company
233 F.2d 541, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3183 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the applicable foreign law of the place where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti), as foreign law is treated as a question of fact.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Arkansas, was temporarily in Saudi Arabia.
- Defendant is a Delaware corporation, licensed to do business in New York and engaged in extensive business in Saudi Arabia.
- While in Saudi Arabia, the plaintiff was seriously injured when an automobile he was driving collided with a truck.
- The truck was owned by the defendant and was being driven by one of the defendant's employees at the time of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant in a federal court in New York, with jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- Plaintiff did not plead or offer to prove the applicable law of Saudi Arabia in his complaint or at trial.
- At trial, the judge ruled that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove Saudi Arabian law.
- Plaintiff’s counsel declined an offer for an adjournment to prepare proof of the foreign law, choosing instead to rely on the applicability of New York law.
- The trial judge refused to take judicial notice of Saudi Arabian law and directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal against the plaintiff.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 tort case governed by the law of a foreign country, does the plaintiff have the burden of proving that foreign law in order to establish a claim for relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank, Circuit Judge
Yes, in a tort case governed by foreign law, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that foreign law. Under New York's conflict of laws rules, which apply in this diversity case, the substantive law of the place where the tort occurred—Saudi Arabia—governs the case. The general rule is that foreign law is a question of fact that must be proven by the party relying on it. The court cannot presume that fundamental American tort principles, such as negligence or vicarious liability (respondeat superior), are universal or exist in a non-common law country like Saudi Arabia. Although a New York statute permits courts to take judicial notice of foreign law, it would be an abuse of discretion to do so here where the law is difficult to ascertain and the plaintiff, who had the burden, provided no assistance to the court. As the plaintiff deliberately chose not to prove Saudi Arabian law, he failed to establish an essential element of his case.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the traditional common law approach that treats foreign law as a fact that must be pleaded and proven, placing a significant and potentially dispositive burden on the party whose claim relies on it. The decision underscores the potential harshness of the lex loci delicti (law of the place of the wrong) rule in international torts, as failure to prove foreign law results in dismissal, even if the underlying facts suggest liability under the forum's law. It highlights the reluctance of American courts to assume the universality of their own legal principles, particularly those from the common law tradition. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for litigants in international disputes of the procedural necessity to actively research and present foreign law to the court.
