Summary
In Ellis v. Garwood (1958), 168 Ohio St. 241, this court held that "both the substantive and procedural laws of Ohio" are applicable to a suit in this state arising from automobile accidents in this state where the drivers of both cars were nonresidents of Ohio.
Summary of this case from Seeley v. Expert, Inc.Opinion
No. 35366
Decided July 16, 1958.
Negligence — Wrongful-death action resulting from automobile accident in Ohio — Nonresident's personal representative's action against nonresident — Right to maintain in this state — Case governed by Ohio substantive and procedural law — Answer demurrable, when — Alleging that decedent and defendant co-employees of foreign corporation — That workmen's compensation law of foreign state affords exclusive remedy — Lex loci delicti applies — Tort action not precluded in Ohio.
1. Where a nonresident of the state of Ohio is killed in an automobile accident which occurs in Ohio, his personal representative may bring an action in this state against a nonresident motor vehicle operator who is alleged to have caused the death, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2125.01, 4515.01 and 2703.20, Revised Code, which establish the right to recover for wrongful death, authorize the bringing of an action for injury arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle in the county in which the injury occurred and provide for service upon nonresident operators of motor vehicles.
2. Where the personal representative of one nonresident of Ohio sues another nonresident in an Ohio court for damages for wrongful death arising from an automobile accident which occurred in this state, the case is governed by both the substantive and procedural laws of Ohio.
3. In a wrongful-death action brought in Ohio, the place of the injury resulting in the death, by the personal representative of an employee of a foreign corporation against a co-employee thereof, where an answer is filed which alleges that the plaintiff had received an award of compensation under the workmen's compensation law of the foreign state, and that such law provides that such compensation shall constitute "the exclusive remedy to an employee, or * * * his dependents, when such employee is * * * killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ," the principle of " lex loci delicti" applies, the substantive law of Ohio, rather than the substantive law of the foreign state, is controlling, the law of Ohio does not preclude such an action, and such answer does not state a defense and is demurrable.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
This is a wrongful-death action instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. The cause is before this court on the petition, answer, the demurrer to the first affirmative defense of the answer, the docket and journal entries of the Court of Common Pleas, and the docket and journal entries of the Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff is the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Robert Ellis, who died December 3, 1954, as a result of an automobile collision on December 1, 1954, at an intersection in the village of Independence, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The decedent and the defendant, John S. Garwood, were employed as engineers for the Sperry Gyroscope Company of New York, and both of them lived in and were residents of the state of New York. The defendant was the engineer section head and the decedent was a sales engineer of said company.
The petition states two causes of action — one based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant and the other based upon his alleged willful and wanton misconduct.
The answer admits that the decedent was employed as a sales engineer by the Sperry Gyroscope Company, and that the defendant was "likewise employed by said company"; states that, at the time of the accident, he and the decedent were on the business of their common employer and were then and there acting within the scope of their employment; admits the collision and injuries of the decedent; but denies generally the other allegations contained in the petition.
The answer, for a "first affirmative defense," alleges:
"* * * the Sperry Gyroscope Company was subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law of the state of New York, and that in obedience to said law it was covered by an insurer under a policy of insurance, whereby premiums were paid to said insurer in consideration of the latter's agreement to indemnify the company against its liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law to employees who might be injured in the scope of their employment, or to the dependents of employees who might be killed while acting in the scope of their employment.
"Defendant states that following the death of Robert Ellis, the plaintiff, as widow of said decedent, pursued her right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of New York, on her own behalf as well as on behalf of the decedent's surviving children. After filing an application for death benefit compensation, an award was made, the present value thereof at the time of its making being approximately $32,000. Defendant states that plaintiff has received and will continue to receive for an indeterminable time payments in the nature of death benefits under the said Workmen's Compensation Law of New York, the said payments inuring to the benefit of herself as widow and the decedent's surviving children.
"Defendant states that Section 29(6) of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law provides as follows:
"`The right to compensation or benefits under this chapter shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee, or in case of death, his dependents, when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ.'
"Defendant further states that in construing Section 29(6) of the Workmen's Compensation Law, the courts of New York have held that where an employee is injured by the negligence or wrong of a fellow employee when both are acting in the course of their employment, and their employer is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the injured employee, or in case of death, his dependents, is barred from maintaining an action at law against the employee whose negligence or wrong was the cause of the injury or death."
For such defense, it is then alleged that by virtue of Section 29(6) of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law and plaintiff's acceptance of death benefits thereunder, plaintiff is barred from maintaining her present action in the state of Ohio.
A demurrer to the answer as to defendant's "first affirmative defense," on the ground that Section 29(6) of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law does not constitute a defense to either of the two causes of action set forth in the petition, was overruled. Plaintiff not desiring to plead further, and at her request, the action was dismissed at her costs, for which judgment was rendered.
An appeal was thereupon prosecuted to the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.
The cause is before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Mr. Charles H. Ayres, for appellee.
Messrs. McConnell, Blackmore, Cory, Burke Kundtz, Mr. S. Burns Weston and Mr. Mark O'Neill, for appellant.
The issue presented to this court is whether the provisions of Section 29(6) of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law and the plaintiff's acceptance of death benefits thereunder bar the plaintiff from maintaining this action in the state of Ohio.
Under the New York Workmen's Compensation Law, the right to compensation or benefits thereunder is the exclusive remedy of an employee or, in case of his death, his dependents, where such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ.
Under Ohio law this matter is treated in Section 4123.54, Revised Code, as follows:
"If an employee is a resident of a state other than this state and is insured under the workmen's compensation law or similar laws of a state other than this state, such employee and his dependents are not entitled to receive compensation or benefits under Sections 4123.01 to 4123.94, inclusive, of the Revised Code, on account of injury, disease, or death arising out of or in the course of employment while temporarily within this state and the rights of such employee and his dependents under the laws of such other state shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer on account of such injury, disease or death." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the issue is presented as to whether this action against a co-employee, prohibited under the New York Workmen's Compensation Law as to those who have received compensation under such law, may be maintained in Ohio, where the cause of action arose and where such actions against co-employees are not prohibited by the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act.
The cases of Landrum v. Middaugh, 117 Ohio St. 608, 160 N.E. 691, and Morrow v. Hume, Admx., 131 Ohio St. 319, 3 N.E.2d 39, cited by the parties herein, were each brought by an employee, or on behalf of the dependents of an employee, to recover from a co-employee damages for injuries or death occasioned by the negligence of such co-employee. Each was decided prior to the enactment of the quoted paragraph of Section 4123.54, Revised Code, effective September 3, 1941 (119 Ohio Laws, 565, 567), and in each the injuries occurred in Ohio during employment by an Ohio employer, and the injured employee or his dependents, in the event of his death, had been compensated from the State Insurance Fund of Ohio.
In the Landrum case, recovery against the fellow employee was denied, because the defendant was a foreman in direct supervision and was the "alter ego" of the employer in the operation of machinery. But in the Morrow case, which was an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of an employee while riding in an automobile owned and driven by his superior co-employee, caused by the negligence of the driver while both were engaged in a trip in the service of their employer, a demurrer was sustained to a defense in the answer of the defendant co-employee that the widow and the dependents of the deceased employee had been awarded compensation by the Industrial Commission of Ohio. That judgment was affirmed by this court.
In Section 4123.54, Revised Code, supra, only the rights of the injured party against the employer are set forth. The statute fails to state that "the rights of such employee and his dependents under the laws of such other state shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer [ and his employees] on account of such injury, disease or death," as would have been necessary if actions to recover damages from a co-employee were to be governed exclusively by the statutes of the foreign state.
Thus, the Morrow case established the principle that employees of Ohio employers or the dependents of such employees are not precluded from recovering for injury or death merely because the alleged tort-feasor happened to be a co-employee; and Section 4123.54, enacted subsequent to the Morrow case, did not disturb that principle since it did not establish immunity for nonresident co-employees. In other words, the immunity from suit by injured employees which is granted an employer by the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act does not necessarily extend to co-employees, whether resident or nonresident.
In 9 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 665, 666, Section 9, it is stated:
"The broad uncontroverted rule is that the lex loci [the law of the place in which the facts or circumstances arose on which the litigation is based] governs as to the substantive rights of the parties, that is, as to all matters going to the basis of the right of action itself, while the lex fori [the law of the jurisdiction in which the litigation occurs] controls as to matters connected merely with the remedy, such as the form of remedy and all matters of procedure relating thereto. * * * Procedure has been defined as the machinery for carrying on the suit, including pleading, process, evidence, and practice, whether in the trial court or the appellate courts for review, or in laying the foundation for such review."
The cause of action in the instant case arose in Ohio because the accident (the "facts or circumstances") occurred in this state. The right of the plaintiff herein to bring this action arose under the provisions of the following sections of the Revised Code: Section 2125.01 ("action for wrongful death"), Section 4515.01 ("venue in actions for injury caused by motor vehicles") and Section 2703.20 ("service of process upon nonresident owners or operators of motor vehicles"). These sections of the Revised Code establish the right of dependents to recover for wrongful death, authorize the bringing of an action to recover for an injury arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle in the county wherein the injury occurred, and provide for service upon nonresident operators of motor vehicles.
Thus, by the statutes of this state relating to workmen's compensation and the decision of this court in the case of Morrow v. Hume, supra, an employee or his dependents, whether resident or nonresident, are not precluded from recovering damages from a co-employee for injuries or death, merely because of their receipt of benefits under a workmen's compensation law; and, by the statute above, such an employee, whether resident or nonresident, may maintain an action against his co-employee in Ohio where the injury resulted from the operation of a motor vehicle in this state by such co-employee.
It is here noted that this decision relates only to a demurrer to an answer. In keeping with the general policy of this court to refrain from the expression of dicta, it follows that when we find that the answer demurred to does not contain a defense we have determined the only question before the court at this time. It may well be that a more complete treatment of the subject of suits by co-employees who have received compensation from the State Insurance Fund is merited. It is apparent, however, that such treatment must be left to a review by this court of a decision wherein there is a more complete record than that in the instant case which has not passed the pleading stage.
Suffice it to say that, since in the instant case the law of Ohio is both the lex loci and the lex fori, the law of Ohio relating to both substance and procedure is controlling. See Collins, a Minor, v. McClure, 143 Ohio St. 569, 56 N.E.2d 171. The parties to this action, therefore, although they represent and are, respectively, co-employees of a New York firm, have the same rights, privileges, duties and liabilities as would co-employees of an Ohio firm under the same circumstances.
It follows that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, TAFT, BELL and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
Although Morrow v. Hume, Admx., 131 Ohio St. 319, 3 N.E.2d 39, purported merely to distinguish Landrum v. Middaugh, 117 Ohio St. 608 160 N.E. 691, it did in effect overrule it. This is apparent from a consideration of the distinction suggested in the Morrow opinion. Even appellant herein in relying on the Landrum case recognized that there was no reasonable ground upon which it could be distinguished from the Morrow case.
If the Landrum case were still the law, then the Common Pleas Court would have been correct in its judgment dismissing plaintiff's petition (although for a reason other than it indicated by what is stated in its journal); and the Court of Appeals should have affirmed that judgment of dismissal. Hence, in order to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we must refuse to follow the Landrum case; and therefore we should recognize and state that we are overruling it.