Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co.
1953 U.S. LEXIS 2087, 97 L. Ed. 2d 1211, 345 U.S. 514 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not compel a forum state to apply the statute of limitations of another state where a cause of action arose; a forum state may apply its own statute of limitations, even if it is shorter and bars the claim.
Facts:
- Simonds Abrasive Co., a corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, manufactured a grinding wheel.
- Cheek Wells was killed in Alabama when the grinding wheel he was working with burst.
- Alabama's wrongful death statute provided a two-year period to bring an action.
- Pennsylvania's wrongful death statute provided a one-year period to bring an action.
- The administratrix of Wells's estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Simonds Abrasive Co. in Pennsylvania.
- The lawsuit was filed after one year had passed since the death, but before the two-year mark.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Cheek Wells's estate sued Simonds Abrasive Co. for wrongful death in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based on diversity of citizenship.
- Simonds Abrasive Co. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitations.
- The district court, applying Pennsylvania's conflict of laws rules, agreed and granted summary judgment for Simonds Abrasive Co.
- The administratrix appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the Full Faith and Credit Clause issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause compel a forum state, in a diversity action, to apply the statute of limitations of the state where the cause of action arose when it conflicts with the forum state's shorter statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
No, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel the forum state to apply the period of limitation of a foreign state. States are generally free to adopt their own rules of conflict of laws, and the long-established principle is that the statute of limitations of the forum applies. The Court rejected the argument that a special exception should be made for statutory rights, like wrongful death, where the time limitation is 'built-in' to the statute creating the right. The Court found such distinctions 'too unsubstantial to form the basis for constitutional distinctions.' Unlike cases such as Hughes v. Fetter, Pennsylvania did not discriminate against foreign causes of action, as it applied its one-year limitation to all wrongful death actions, regardless of where they arose.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, the forum state should be compelled to apply the law of the state where the injury occurred, including its statute of limitations. For statutory causes of action like wrongful death, the time limit is an inseparable, substantive part of the right itself, not merely a procedural rule. The majority's holding contradicts the principle that the law of the place of the tort should govern and enables forum shopping, where the outcome of a case depends on the fortuitous location of the lawsuit. The distinction between substance and procedure, on which older precedents rest, has been eroded. The dissent argues that 'it is Alabama law which giveth and only Alabama law that taketh away.'
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional conflict of laws doctrine that statutes of limitation are procedural matters governed by the law of the forum state (lex fori). It establishes that this rule does not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, even for statutory causes of action where the time limit is arguably part of the substantive right. The case solidifies the forum state's power to control its own docket and procedural rules, prioritizing uniformity within the forum's courts over uniformity of outcome for a single cause of action across different states. This precedent has significant implications for litigation strategy, making the choice of forum a critical factor when statutes of limitation differ between the location of the injury and a potential court.
