Nelson v. Eckert
329 S.W.2d 426, 231 Ark. 348, 1959 Ark. LEXIS 511 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a conflict of laws analysis for a tort action, the question of whether a cause of action survives the death of the tortfeasor is a substantive issue governed by the law of the place where the wrong occurred (lex loci delicti), while the statute of limitations is a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum state (lex fori).
Facts:
- Carlos Levone Nelson and Charles Crumpler were army acquaintances from Arkansas stationed in Texas.
- After being discharged, Crumpler borrowed his mother's car in Arkansas and drove to Greene County, Arkansas to pick up Nelson's parents, Pred and Myrtle Nelson.
- Crumpler then drove the Nelsons to Texas to pick up Carlos Nelson, who was in the process of being discharged.
- On July 1, 1954, during the return trip to Arkansas, but while still in Texas, Crumpler's car was involved in an accident.
- Charles Crumpler, Carlos Nelson, Pred Nelson, and Myrtle Nelson were all killed in the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Hobert Nelson, Administrator for the estates of the three Nelsons, sued W. C. Eckert, Administrator of Charles Crumpler's estate, in Greene County Circuit Court on June 11, 1956.
- Eckert filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and venue.
- The Greene County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint on August 13, 1956, after Nelson confessed the motion.
- Nelson filed a new complaint in Columbia County Circuit Court on January 17, 1957.
- Eckert filed a demurrer, arguing the suit was barred by the statute of limitations and the cause of action abated with Crumpler's death.
- The Columbia County Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action on February 23, 1959.
- Nelson, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
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 Arkansas for a tort that occurred in Texas, does Texas substantive law, which allows the action to survive the tortfeasor's death, govern the survival of the action, even if Arkansas law at the time did not?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Paul Ward
Yes. In a tort action, the law of the state where the injury occurred governs substantive rights, including whether a cause of action survives the death of the tortfeasor. The court reasoned that survival of an action is a substantive right created by the law of the place of the wrong, not a procedural matter. Since the accident occurred in Texas and Texas law permits a cause of action to survive the tortfeasor's death, the suit may proceed in Arkansas even though Arkansas law at the time would have abated the action. Conversely, the court determined the statute of limitations is procedural and governed by the law of the forum, Arkansas. However, it concluded that Arkansas's specific two-year wrongful death statute of limitations did not apply because it was 'built-in' to the Arkansas statute that creates the cause of action, and this cause of action was created by Texas law. Therefore, a more general Arkansas statute of limitations (three or five years) would apply, making the suit timely.
Dissenting - Justice Ed F. McFaddin
No. The cause of action should be barred by the statute of limitations. The dissent argued that since both Texas and Arkansas had two-year statutes of limitations for wrongful death, applying a longer, general Arkansas statute gives the plaintiff a benefit they would not have had in either state. The dissent reasoned that even if the Texas limitation was not strictly 'built-in,' it was specifically directed to the liability and should qualify the right. Furthermore, the dissent contended that the initial suit filed in Greene County was in a court of improper venue and therefore did not legally commence an action, meaning it failed to toll the statute of limitations. Consequently, the second suit, filed more than two years after the accident, was untimely and should have been dismissed.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the traditional 'lex loci delicti' (law of the place of the wrong) rule for substantive issues in tort cases within Arkansas's conflict of laws jurisprudence. It clearly distinguishes between substantive matters, such as the survival of a cause of action, and procedural matters, like statutes of limitations. The decision's treatment of 'built-in' statutes of limitations creates a nuanced exception, holding that such statutes only apply when the forum's own substantive law creates the right of action, thereby preventing the forum's specific limitations period from extinguishing a right created by another state's law.
