Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
3noraMe 7. 9. fllll,Xeimbar
IzCustriaiAccident Boar8
sAi3tAIl~ Texas
servicing the
into.Texas?
1930, requesting
bove stated QLES-
of the letter
Sherrill,attorzzy,
rkmn' 8 Compa~sa-
es enolosad ia
nsus El2otric-Co-
8 domiciled in
8uthorizut-i
to t‘rcns-
ate of Texas and has
rt line into Texas from
1398set Texarkar;a. Lt
any mea constantlyin
exas, but in its operations
zs a?loyees necessary into
the State of Tcxzs to aarry on the busi-
3188sthere. They all, however, return
to headquarters et Texarkana, :XkBELSaS.
Eonorvble T. ii.Hill, page 2
*'The'questionhes &risen before the
3mid es to whet&r or not it is nooessrry
for this Cooperativeto maintain e Korkmen~:+
Comgensatloninsurancagollpy to cover the
activities of,its ezxgloyees who go into the
State of Textis for the pwqoso of servicing
tha short line running into.Texas. ~iOuld .
or oould the State of Texas pcrmlt employees.
of the Coogeretlvewho are injured-while
working in Texas to recover compensation
fro;3the Cooperativeunder the laws of the
state of Texas or would the State of Terss
require such employee to pursue his remaaies
in the State of Arkansas sinoe his aotivitfes
in Texas wo~alC only be inoidentelto hi?
Arkensao employment.
"It is zi+understandingtbst you law
exempts 'employersof less t&n three employees
frolathe provisions of the Texas Conponeation
irct. %oulLthe Arkansas Corporationbore-
quired to have.three.employeesemployed sole-
ly in the State of Texas to make this law ap-
plloable to them, or would it be aggllcableto
them if they e&Aoyeh three or nore employees
of the .St&teof kxkensas who were used In the.
servicingof the lines, although et diffiorent~
t,j.ms, in the State &I+"
Texas."
lissiming that the e@oyees of the Southwest
Arkansils-Electric Cooperztiv2Corporationservi.oinSthe
lines runnfng into the State ot Texas are engaged in intru-
state comerce, your Inquiry resolves itself ~Gitothb Sol-
1owfng tvio~questions:
1. Is the Southwest Arkansas Blcctric
CooperativeCor$orstfon,who sends three or
more of its i*rkansns onsloyces into the State
of Taxes for the pirjose of servvfoingits
.ahortline'runninginto Texas, subject to the
Tcxas~YiorWn*s CompensationLaw?
2. If they are not'subjeatto the act,
&wjran e.zqloyeeof the Southwest Arkansas
xlectric CooperativeCorporationmvhois In-,'
Jured while wor.kingln Texas sue, his Z@OYer
under the laws of the state of Texas?'
Eonorable P. 3. ilill,page 3
Section 2 or Article a306, Eeviaea Statutes'
of Texas, relating tc the ii'orkmenVsCompensationLuw,
reads &E fOl.iOVJS:
"The pFOQidOIlS of %his la,w~shjllnot
n~?ly to aotiona to recover demeges for per-
3ora.linjuriesnor ror death resuiting frou
-,ersonelinjuries sustnined by'donestio
serv&nts, fernnlaborers,rsnch laborers,
car to euployeo of wzy firm, person or
cor~orstlonhaving in his or their employ
less than three employes,nor to employes
of any person, firs, or corporat.ion.operst-
irigany steam, electrio,street or inter-
urbii;l
raiiviayes e ooiimoncarrier.
ecgloyer 4 three cr more employes sRl3 t
tizo of beco&n;7, s subscriber shell rmsin
LLtnC
liobilitfes.duties end exemptions of such,
notwithst&tiingsfter hsvln,?become e sub-
ccrioer the member of emvI.ovesiusy
tittimes
bo le~eas
than three.* .(Un&rscorFngours)
Se.Otion 1, 02 Artfole 82OQ re&s‘in *t as.
follovrs:
*~E.nployer*she31 meon eny person,,
flrm;'partnership,association of persons
or corporut%onsor thelr.lag~lrcpresente-
tives that zskes contracts of hire."
The Texas Workuen*s CompensationLapels en
eloctivonet, end the leg&l relation arising between
ths ez~loyae, ths ezqo,Dloj`` end insurer, who bringihe.a-
ocives vzithinthe.o>erutionof the act, is oontrcctuel~.
Th ?&in objactiveOP the sot is to provide, in lieu
of cozmor~law liability, oertain .sndaboolute,coupensa-
tion or boaafite to uqloyees or.the3.rde;idn&ents In
cases where .suohem~loyeashsvveroceived.injuriesin
tf?acurse of their employsent resulting in disability
or Geath. Any employer of lsbor,'unissshe is exwesaly
exciutieii
fro.mthe oaaration of the la-d,is sl;ibject to
the act, und nay bticome:Isuhsoribar to the association.
Ly co;l$lgingwith the sot, the employer bacom6s,~uxcept
.d td certain clafinsfor exemplary dainwgjcs, exempt ‘from
all coscon .hw or statt&ory liability on account of in-
Juriw sufteredby.his employees. The statute does nqij
Honor;:bleT. B. Hill, page 4
us5 the word *'regul~Por wre&l.arlyenployed" or WOnployed
solely within the state" to characterizethe continuityof
of the three or ore esiployem, To ereqt
the e;nlloyl;lent
an e.zployerSroathe operation OS the act in Texas on the
g-ouhd of rcduation OS nurnbcrOS employees, it viould ai)perr
necessary to show t&t tbs nuber oS mployees hss been
peranently reduced below three. ,~,
IS the SouthwestArkansas Xleatric Cooperative
Corporationdoes not elect to corm tier the Texas QIorkmn*s
CospeusationLaw, the Guestionthen arises, would one of
tmir eZlplOyees injured in Texas have the right to Sue under
the Texas laws and recover a judgstentin such suit?
This question is unique to the extent that Arkans-s
is one o? the two re.xainin&states that does not have a Work-
:aen'scoapeasationact. IS it were not Sor that fact the
case of Sradford Zleqtric Light Co. v. 3ennie X. Clapper,
2.56U. 3. 145;76.L. ed. 1028, 52 5. Ct. 571, 82 A. L. Il.
896; would be exactly in point. The facts In the Clapper.
case, wpra, are Identicalwith the situution you inquire
about in your letter. %'e'mntion this aase to disti...guishit
as certainly it would control in this instance if Arkansas
bad any Sam of workmen's CogDensationact.
Since the State oS Arkansas does hot have a work-
I*en'scompensationsot, -A%See1 that the rule OS lcx loci
deiecti Huuld apply ii an elnployaeof the southwestmicanss
;ilect&‘ic
CooperativeCorporationwe~‘einjured in Texas. It
is thoroughlyestablishedas a gemral rule that the lag OS
the place where the injury incurred 16 the law that governs
and it applies with respect to the substantive-phasesOS
torts or 'theactions thereior. Curtis v. Conpbell, 70 Fed.
(2d) 81; Loranger v. Nsdeau, 10 Pac. (2d) 63, at p. 65: Wad-
cury v. Central~Ver.mntRailway, 12 hr.3. (2d) 732. In thte
ci;aeof Curtis v. Campbell, supra, certiori denied, 55 Sup. Ct.
549, 295 U.S. 737, Circuit Judge XOOlley states the rule OS
the iaw of tireplace ln the Sollowlng language:
"The heart OS the titer is thit tbs law
OS the plade of a tort gives a *right OS aotion'
.to one fulling within its term; and it does 8s
giz",;t regard to the residence of the tort-
. In such case 'the law of the place where
the right of aotionwas acquired or the liability
n3s Incurred will govern as to th;e right of ac-
ticjn,fStory on ConSliat OS Laws ( 9th Zd.) 775;
Eozorable T. 3. Hill, Page 5
American law InstituteRestatexent, Conflict
OS LaWa, 1 i 449, 455; Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v.
Cross, 60 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 128 8. W. 1173;
Louci-8v. Stadard Oil Co., 224 N.Y. 99, 120 N.
Ii.198; &later v. Mexican P..R. Cb., 194 U. 8.
120, 126, 24 S. Ct. 381, 4&i. Ed* 900; Ormsby
v. Chase, 290 U.S. 387, 54 S. Ct. 211, 78 L.
Ed. 378, 92 ii. L. R. 1499."
Roth the Courts of the State OS Arkansas nnd the
State of Texas have recognized the rule of lex loci delecti.
Zee Cueron, et alv. VandergriSS (Sup. Ct., i&c.), 13 8. 7:.
1092, Taxas &W. 0. R. Co., et alvs.Mi.fler, et al, 128 S.
vi.1165.
You are respectfullyadvised tint it is the opinion
of this department that the 5outhwest Arkansas Slectrlo Co-
operative Corporationmay elect to come under the ;iorkinen~s
Coxpensation.Lawof Texas. However.,If the company does not
choo.seto come under the Korkxen's CompensationAct of Texas,
those employeeswho are injured in T&as under the rule of
lex loci delecti may pursua their Olalms for damages under
the laws of the‘stata of Texas.
Yours very truly
XmORNEY OrnRAL 03 l%xAs
BY (Slgaed)
FredePlk B Isely
Assistant