Rhoades v. Wright

entitled,9 ity they to which are there is a

fair and reasonable basis in the record to

support findings I judgment.

would affirm.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the dissent of

CROCKETT, C. J. RHOADES, individually

Mildred and as

Administratrix of the Estate of Claude

Rhoades, deceased, Appel- Plaintiff and

lant, WRIGHT,

James also C. known as James Wright, Wright

Clifford and Clifford Wright, wife,

and Essie his Defendants Respondents.

No. 16246.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. Hackett,

9. Charlton v. 11 Utah 2d 360 P.2d the lands

Bеcause location of each farmed, and owned and both Rhoades across moved back and forth the Wright all of frequently. April On border inspecting portions herein parties the were country On a respective of their farms. few miles within a of road in Colorado and border, and Wright James shot killed the Rhoades. Claude September plaintiff com- On wrongful death action menced District for Utah alleg- United States Court juris- jurisdiction personal ing diversity and Walter, H. Arthur Nielsen and Robert the Utah under diction over defendants Nielsen, Henriod, Jensen of Gottfredson & 78-27-24, Statute, et Long-Arm Section Peck, City, Lake A. Frandsen Salt Duane That suit dismissed seq.1 subsequently was Frandsen, Jensen, Price, plain- Keller & prejudice September without on and appellant. tiff appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of after Appeals ground Hanni on the that United Philip Glenn C. and R. Fishier of per- not exercise Hanni, District Court could Strong City, & Lake for defend- States Salt jurisdiction over the defendants based sonal respondents. ants and Long-Arm on Statute.2 WILKINS, Justice: plaintiff on July Thereafter wrongful commenced simultaneous death appeal This is an from an order of the actions in the Colorado District Court for County District of San dismiss- Juan County Dolores and the Utah District Court ing complaint seeking damages plaintiff’s Juan County. for San hus- wrongful plaintiff’s for the death of band. subsequently granted Defendants were summary judgment by the Colorado court underlying surrounding facts dismissing plaintiff’s complaint based on in ex- death action can be found running statute limi- Colorado in the opinion tenso this Court wrongful death applicable tations ac- v. Wright, Rhoades 552 P.2d 131 prior to tions. The dismissal occurred (1976) (hereafter I). However, Rhoades I. Court’s decision Rhoades following brief of the facts recitation repeated provide here to the framework I we order of In Rhoades reversed an upon which decision of this case rests. writ of vacating District Court attach- property, hоlding ment on defendants’ Utah husband, Plaintiff her Claude proper the attachment was a method Rhoades, approximately three-quar- lived conferring jurisdiction. ters of a mile on the Utah side I, Utah-Colorado border. Mr. Rhoades After remand Rhoades farmed land he owned Utah and a motion filed Utah District Court or, process land that he leased in Defendant order quashing Colorado. for an service Wright two miles com- alternatively, dismissing plaintiff’s James C. lived about the Colorado side of the border his As bases for motion defendants plaint. (1) parents, alleged plaintiff standing, Defendants and Essie lacked Clifford Wright jurisdiction, owned Wright. (2) farmed land the District Court lacked him parents (3) plaintiff’s and his both in Colorado and claim was barred grant- Utah. statute of limitations. Ann., 1953, per July Unpublished 1. All references are decision filed to Utah Code curiam amended, as unless noted. otherwise dismiss, motion to evaluated to the ing according the District Court standards set (1) in its memorandum decision ruled that forth International Wash- Shoe [Co. (2) standing, did have deferred rul- 154,90 ington, 326 L.Ed. issue, ing jurisdictional on the ruled (1945)] progeny.”4 and its In Interna- 95] plaintiff’s governed by claim Shoe, tional the Court held that state Colorado statute of limitations for exercise over non-resident de- death actions and “under substantive only fendant if the defendant has “certain law of Colorado no cause of exists.” minimum contacts with such [the state] that the maintenance of the suit does not appeal have ques- On defendants not ruling tioned the of the District offend ‘traditional play Court as to notions of fair and plaintiff’s standing, and we do justice.’ therefore substantial Milliken v. Meyer, 311 urge address that issue. Defendants do 85 L.Ed. U.S. as an affirming alternative basis for the 278].”5 order of due process dismissal that federal jurisdic- Shaffer the exercise involved requirements preclude juris- the exercise of the Delaware courts based on the diction Plaintiff urges Utah Court. sequestration corpo- of stock in a Delaware this Court to adopt prin- new choice-of-law ration, deemed, pursuant which stock was ciples respect to multi-state wrongful statute, present to Delaware to be in Dela- death actions which would result sequestration procedure ware. The application law, of Utah rather than Colora- require used in to certain officers Shaffer law, do to this case. subject and directors of the Delaware cor- stockholders, poration, who were also I. jurisdiction personal submit themselves to I, In Rhoades this Court ruled that the purpose defending in Delaware for the properly jurisdic- Utah сourt could exercise Supreme stockholder’s derivative suit. The tion in this case based on the attachment of procedure Court held that this violated the property owned by defendants and situated where those defend- process due defendants in urge Utah. Defendants now ants minimum contacts with Dela- had no Heitner, intervening case of Shaffer v. ownership ware other than of stock in a 53 L.Ed.2d corporation. pointed Delaware And as was quasi dictates that the exercise of in out, ante, holding in so the United States jurisdiction rem of the involved in this type Supreme imposed proc- the same due case3 is no longеr constitutionally permissi- requirements ess on the exercise of in rem ble under the Due Process Clause jurisdiction that had quasi previ- in rem Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that the ously been set forth in International Shoe quasi jurisdiction exercise of in rem in this requirements per- as for the exercise of in comports case with the of due requirements jurisdiction. sonam process for the reasons noted infra. argument

The Court in held that “all asser- sense force in the Shaffer One Internationa] jurisdiction tions of state court must be application Shaffer, explained Supreme subject property extinguish 3.As in n. 17 of in and to Court there chose tо use the term “in rem” to describe both in rem tions. In of similar establish the nonexistence of interests jurisdic- quasi in persons. rem particular plain- the other the Denckla, quoting Hanson apply tiff seeks to what he concedes to be the n. 1235 n. property the satisfaction of the defendant to (1958), L.Ed.2d 1283 the Shaffer Court did ac- Restatement, against Judg- of a claim him. knowledge types the distinctions in these ments, 5-9.” jurisdiction. quote That from Hanson stated: jurisdic- quasi in The instant case involves rem judgment “A in rem affects the interests of type. tion of the second persons designated property. judg- A all ment particular persons in quasi in the interests of rem affeсts 4. 433 U.S. at at 2584. designated property. in types. plain- The latter is of In one the two U.S. at at 158. 5. 326 seeking pre-existing tiff is to secure a claim Relationship between of state court defendants standard all exercises Shoe quasi jurisdiction effectively eliminates incorporates the and forum —This element involved jurisdiction type rem of Inter requirement “minimum contacts” However, we conclude that if the case.6 Here, are national Shoe. intended to declare Supreme Court had Utah.8 of land situated in While owners constitutionally impermis- jurisdiction such presence prop according Shaffer the sible, directly. it would so Addi- done the exercise by alone can not erty support there are tionally, indications fact of owner jurisdiction, this State view itself that the Court was of the “suggest of other ship can the existence in rem continued via- quasi has A further ties.”9 contact view, in certain bility situations.7 In our fact farmed is the the defendants case presents just this case such a situation. located Utah. otherwise used the land analyze require- When we process the due of defendants’ presence We consider the ments laid down in International Shoe and immovable— decidedly tangible and Shaffer, together unique aspects with the land — to suffi with use the land be together of jurisdiction type in rem of the quasi here, with this State present by here and involved the facts cient contacts defendants conclude that notions of fair “traditional jurisdiction. support the exercise of to play justice” and substantial are not offend- Furthermore, use ownership and by holding ed that the Utah courts “pur- provides that by here land jurisdiction. properly exercise activity to the forum that poseful related Supreme As the stated in Rush Court v. fair, jurisdiction would make the exercise of Savchuk, 571, 444 U.S. 100 S.Ct. Although just, reasonable.”10 there [and] 577, (1980): 62 L.Ed.2d 516 Supreme in are some indications determining particular whether a ex- activity this opinions purposeful must jurisdiction ercise of state court is con- litiga- way underlying relate in some to with due process, inquiry sistent must tion,11 ‍‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍primary we believe focus relationship among focus on “the the de- notions of fair play remains “traditional fendant, forum, litigation.” and the justice.”12 and substantial Shaffer, 204 (citing supra, 433 at U.S. 2580]) at

S.Ct. quasi point, unique aspects of At this type involved here jurisdiction in rem therefore, We direct our to those inquiry, in vivified. it is true that relationships this case. While become Cf., Heitner, 211, Wright, allegedly supra, 433 U.S. at and Essie without 6. Shaffer Clifford 31, purpose n. 97 at 2582 n. 31. and to defraud consideration plaintiff potential aas creditоr. U.S, See, Id., 211, 37, 433 at n. 97 S.Ct. at 37, 39, 212, n. and at 2583 n. 97 S.Ct. at 2584 n. 209, U.S. at 9. 433 97 S.Ct. at 2582. 2586, 217, Id. at 39. See also ell, J., 97 S.Ct. at Pow- concurring; at at 97 S.Ct. Savchuk, supra, Rush v. 444 U.S. at 100 Stevens, J., concurring Note, Suggested judgment; in the 577; citing Superi at Kulko v. California Application Limitations on Court, 93-94, 98 S.Ct. In Personam to State Jurisdictional Standards 1697-98, (1978) and Hanson L.Ed.2d 132 Shaffer, Critique A Geo.Wash. Questions: Denckla, 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. (1979). throughout U.L.Rev. The Court 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 “property”. generic used the term Shaffer involved The stock certificates. subse- Shoe, supra, at 11. International 326 U.S. Savchuk, quent case of Rush v. 160; Shaffer, supra, U.S. at at involved a L.Ed.2d 516 at 2584. analysis yet applied debt. The Court has its involving property. to a case real require- recognized also be that the 12. It must out of’ prior ment that the cause of action “arise to 8. The record herein reflects quasi question in a shooting with the State is not in contacts the land was owned Thereafter, any Wright. apparently situation central to determi- in rem but is James C. murder, jurisdiction setting nation of after his conviction in conveyed he Statute, parents, Long-Arm the land his 78-27-24. to § death, It cannot be denied that has a jurisdiction action is for state] [a effective providing manifest interest the attachment of defend- was asserted residents. .. means of redress for its land, ulti- ants’ land situated in Utah. stake, stronger at because it is out mately, is what is interest is even Utah’s be viewed as because Utah must еxtent of the case only of the land—and to the plaintiff.17 to the last forum available can, if plaintiff value of the land—that having her claim Plaintiff’s interest judg- successful, satisfaction of her seek way protected on its merits is in no heard Thus, of defendants in ment. the interest the forum because power her choose is, real very in a their land located Utah only is the one now availa the Utah forum And, sense, the own- issue. since prime has at ble. We are mindful Utah land are ership and use of defendants’ both in the litigate her claim tempted purposeful- which “by acts the defendant[s] for Utah United States District Court privilege ly themselves] avail[ed However, in District Court. the Colorado within the forum conducting activities plaintiff permitted neither instance invoking protec- the benefits and State thus her claim. It cannot reach the merits of laws,”13 jurisdic- tion of the exercise of its concerned, this case is denied that so far as is fair and reasona- the Utah court available forum. no other plaintiff has ownership where the Particularly ble.14 quasi fact, with the fact that coupled This with the coupled and use of that land is involved here type jurisdiction in rem normally sought by Wright type James of a of a killing by Defendant C. resort,18weighs heavily in litigants as a last resident, every had “rea- Utah rеlationship be our determination that the before a expect 15 son to to be haled [Utah] supports the litigation and the tween Utah court.” the Utah court.19 jurisdiction by exercise of forum and liti- Relationship 2. between Relationship 3. between defendants due gation prong three-part —This on the rel- —This element focuses litigation interest, process test concentrates Utah’s in be- ative convenience of the defendants any, adjudicating dispute. if in and defend ing required appear is, course, The interest of Utah implicit and substantial courts of Utah. Fairness heirs, individually in either assuring that the touchstones for again provide justice have of this element. through personal representative evaluation for the opportunity compensation to recover aspect of fair- immediately apparent The wrongful death of a Utah resident.16 As due procedural is the regard ness in this Life was stated in McGee v. International opportu- requirements of notice process 220,223, Co., Ins. 355 U.S. S.Ct. to the at- be heard.20 In addition nity to proper- (1957): of defendants’ Utah real 2 L.Ed.2d 223 tachment See, Shaffer, Denckla, 235, 253, at n. 17. 433 U.S. 13. Hanson v. 357 U.S. 1228, 1239, (1958), citing, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 at 2583 n. 37. Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at International S.Ct. at 159. recovery, plaintiff’s if 18. This is so because property any, value of the is limited to the Rush, jurisdiсtion failed In both Shaffer and attached. issue, e., very found no on this i. and the fo- contacts between the defendants that in Shaffer and Rush found 19. The Court in rum. between the was no connection each case there litigation lack of well as a and the forum as Heitner, supra, 15. Shaffer v. 433 U.S. at the defendant minimum contacts between S.Ct. at 2586. the forum. contention 16. We find no merit in defendants’ See, Meyer, g., 311 U.S. e. Milliken plaintiff at the time and decedent were not 85 L.Ed. 278 clearly They shooting Utah. residents of it, presumably paid farmed owned land taxes, in Utah. and licensed their vehicles case, we have With reference to this defendant on each ty, process was served strong there- has already Defendants determined that Utah personally in Colorado. dispute. notice. We clearly adjudicating fore have had interest interest plaintiff’s have also shown that that defendants it is established Once effective relief convenient and obtaining notice, we must exam- have been afforded choose the power her protected by is not afforded a rea- they ine whether been any has such longer no forum because she op- That to be heard. opportunity sonable view, and Col Utah power. Finally, in our primarily must be evaluated portunity obtaining the interest in orado both have an it be inconvenient light of whether would controversies efficient resolution of most to defend in the required for them to be allowing will be served Supreme and that interest Utah courts. As stated her case. Volkswagen Corp. v. merits of Court in World-Wide Woodson, policy social No fundamental substantive (1980): 62 L.Ed.2d 490 jurisdic the exercise impaired by will be against The inconvenient lit- courts. protection Utah in terms of igation typically described above quoted the statement Additionally, Im- “reasonableness” or “fairness.”... forego- recognizes that from Woodson plicit emphasis in this on reasonableness set test, being than ing three-part rather understanding is the the burden formula, applica- balancing is a test. defendant, primary always while showed the test in and Bush tion of concern, case be appropriate ‍‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍will in an was consti- that the exercise of relevant fac- light considered in of other 12, 17, ante.) tutionally (See infirm. nn. tors, interest including the forum State’s Here, application of though, believe see McGee v. adjudicating dispute, the test leads to the conclusion Co., International Life Ins. constitutionally exercise courts 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223] [78 quasi jurisdiction.21 in rem interest in obtain- plaintiff’s relief, ing convenient and effective see Court, supra, at 92 Superiоr Kulko v. II. 132], at at 56 L.Ed.2d least S.Ct. that the the determination Having made pro- adequately when that interest is not court is jurisdiction by exercise of the Utah to choose plaintiff’s power tected the move to the permissible we constitutionally Heitner, forum, cf. choice-of-law issue. n. 37 U.S. n. [97 initially Defendants maintain the interstate L.Ed.2d 683] District Court judgment of the Colorado obtaining in

judicial system’s interest faith and credit given must be full controversies; most efficient resolution of IV, pursuant courts to Article Section Utah interest of the several and shared As 1 of the Constitution.22 United States furthering in fundamental sub- States Clause makes the the Full Faith and Credit Kulko v. policies, stantive social see operative through- Court, judicata at doctrine of res supra, at 132], we also consider system,23 56 L.Ed.2d out the federal given argue appeal, and shall be 21.In “Full Faith Credit their brief Acts, Records, public and each State to the the Tenth determination Circuit Court’s every judicial Proceedings of other State. that the Federal District Court could not pre- Congress may general Laws And the Long- based on the Utah exercise Acts, Rec- the manner in which such scribe ords, judicata Arm res as to the Statute constitutes proved Proceedings and shall be and jurisdictional presented here. A review issue the Effect thereof.” оf the record that this contention was reveals Therefore, appeal. raised for the first time on Duke, See, g., 375 U.S. Durfee v. e. judicial principles under of re- well-established (1963); Riley v. New 11 L.Ed.2d 186 here. view we will not address that contention Co., Trust York (1942), rehearing denied 315 L.Ed. 885 light procedural statutory claim that as time analysis defendants’ under and judgment judicata is res the Colorado the actual appear which within restrictions plaintiff’s Utah action. bars act, as without.30 wrongful death as well judicata principles that res do It is clear as well have criticized Text writers that the a bar to this action and present not given characterization substantive judgment dispositive is not Colorado For death statutes of limitation. wrongful well that a state case. It is established James, in example, Harper Professors foreign judgment recognize need not torts, their treatise on state: merely running of the which is based on the for Today ... there reason is no valid is of limitations.24 This rule local statute limita- special treating strictness in time to statutes of limitation restricted generally death actions upon tions actions. Such sub- procedural as rather than characterized problems preparation, no or of stantive. evidence, or of the perpetuation determining whethеr the statute apart them repose, need for which set limitations found within the Colorado cases, point accident from other from the pro- Act Wrongful Death is substantive Wherever the of view of defendants. cedural, at- we look to the characteristics as statuto- open is an one so far deci- tributed to the statute Thus, concerned, its stat- sub- sions.25 Colorado has tolled is it is ry construction limitations for ute of minors period mitted that the limitation pursuant tolling provision actions to a death just as should treated death actions not within the death appearing per- statutes limitation general are predi- This ruling cleаrly statute itself.26 is damage ac- injury property sonal the statute upon proposition cated well be legislatures might And tions. procedural,27 is and inconsist- of limitations upon remove distinctions prevailed ent with a substantive characterization.28 the law of which have been imbedded jurisdictions Although majority many of our states.31 govern- consider the statutes of limitation on the run judgment based Since ing wrongful death actions to be a substan- is not a of a local statute of limitations ning barring not mere- right tive matter on the based subsequent bar to a ly remedy,29 procedural characteriza- state,32 facts in a sister same with- affecting only remеdy is not credit clause under the full faith and barred precedent. out Numerous courts have in- terpreted wrongful periods bringing death limitation suit Utah. from Hise, 1223; and, generally, Min. (1965), Western Coal & Co. 86 L.Ed. Am.Jur.2d, 1914); Judgments, (8th v. Bodcaw 47 1226. Goodwin F. 338 Cir. § Co., (1902). Lumber 109 La. So. 74 34 Fargo 24. Titus v. Wells Bank and Union Trust Company, (5th 1943); Stokke 134 F.2d 223 Cir. This result stems from the classification 29. Company, (10th Pacific v. Southern 42 169 F.2d statutory deroga- death acts as law in Compa 1948); Western Mineral Coal and Cir. any right. tion of common law Jones, ny (Calif. v. 27 Cal.2d 167 P.2d 719 1946). g., Seely Cowley, See, v. e. 12 Utah 2d 30. Webb, Generale, (1961); supra; Compaigne Gaudette 63 v. 365 P.2d 25. See Wood & Selick v. Burkhart, v. P. 571 Transatlantique, Brookshire (2nd 1930). 283 141 Okl. 43 F. 941 Cir. (Okl.1930); Wohlgemuth Meyer, 139 Cal. v. 26. Section 87-2-3 Colorado Revised Statutes (Cal.App.1956). App.2d P.2d 293 816 ‍‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍(1963); 13-81-103 Statutes § Colorado Revised Sommermeyer, Price v. P.2d 1220 584 James, (1956). Harper 2 Torts 1296 31. & (Colo.App.1978). Trust, Fargo Wells and Union 32. Titus v. Bank Webb, Gaudette Mass. 284 N.E.2d 362 Company, supra; Stokke v. Pacific Southern Biewend, supra; Biewend Cal.2d See, g., Nicholson v. Lockwood Greene e. (Cal. 1941). P.2d Inc., Engineers, 179 So.2d 76 Ala. applied Wells the forum’s shorter of limita- assuming Even that the statute dismissing limitations, an thus statute wrongful death for Colorado’s tions the was barred law yet action which not substantive, not, light that would fact is wrong the state which foreign upon of the Co., 345 Abrasive of Wells v. Simonds in The predicated. death action was ful 857-58, 517-518, 97 L.Ed. involves identical statutes of stant case two contrary result: (1953), call a wrongful death. The conflict limitation for of the rule that the limitations The refusal to from the Colorado court’s arises (which Court has said apply this forum statute, 13-80- the renewal Section apply full faith and requirements meets (1973), Sec Revised Colorado Statutes credit) usual conflicts rule is the 87-1-29 Revised Statutes tion Colorado However, have been diver- states. there action, appli wrongful death an (1963), to a foreign statutory when gent views a the Colo which would have allowed cation law has a unknown to the common right year within one brought suit to be rado in the sec- of limitation included period federal action which the dismissal Alabama creating right. The The Col jurisdiction. was based on lack of right here such a statute involved creates apply not to that toll orado court’s decision The and contains built-in limitation. result from a substan ing procedure did not but rather was jurisdictions tive-procedural analysis, held in view is some simply on the fact that the renewal based intimately a limitation is connect- such so statutory provision applies by express terms must enforced right ed with that it within the only to those actions commenced along in the forum state with the sub- statute of general allowed period right. stantive 80), an provisions (Article article limitations the reasons We are not with concerned which period not which does include the for their own which have led some states brought. wrongful death action must be limitation, adopt foreign purposes provision for applying the Utah limitation own, of their in such a situation. instead actions, previously matter wrongful death here whether the Full The the rem this to affect determined them to compels Faith and Credit Clause itself,33 not the cause of action edy and prevailing do so. rule is Our applies statute tolling the Utah hold Full Faith and does not Credit Clause bring suit to one extends the time to period the forum use the compel state to ac federal after the dismissal of the year of a We see foreign of limitation state. tion, complied limitation graft no reason situation consequence applying our case.34 onto Differences based exception an it. tolling pro period along limitation with the upon foreign right whether bringing vision is to extend the time upon known to common law or Colorado. The beyond suit allowed foreign arrangement the code of the death statute the Utah fact that too state are unsubstantial to form that of longer than of limitations basis for constitutional distinctions under application warrants (Foоt- holding the Full Faith Clause. Credit Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. omitted.) scope. extending case without its Seely sentatives, Cowley, supra. may action v. a new commence year or failure. within one after the reversal provides: added.) (Emphasis 34. Section 78-12 —40 com- action was The Federal District Court any If action is within due time commenced death; years two of the plaintiff menced within judgment is and a thereon for jurisdic- reversed, prejudice plaintiff without for lack dismissed if action or fails such merits; and upon hence other than on the than tion and a cause of action otherwise merits, subsequent upon action was either Utah District Court and the time limited by commencing year same law or contract one of that dismissal. filed within expired, plaintiff, shall have or if he dies

351 arising action within and without our provided plain- the additional time As for in this faith and not de- provision Full credit does by applying tolling tiff State.36 with case, policies is consistent totally public this result mand that our established excep- policy by the public evidenced above submit to the law of a expressed Utah statute35 borrowing found in Utah’s tion state.37 foreign plaintiffs: concerning resident by reached oth- results been Similar arisen in cause of has When a tolling pro- their own by applying er courts thereоf ... the laws another state exemptions express implied visions or be main- an action thereon cannot there statutes, borrowing ap- rather than to their person by a reason against tained placed on periods the limitation plying time, shall not an action thereon lapse of foreign actions state wrongful death state, against him in this be maintained in which the death occurred.38 who has been except in favor one has held the citizen of this state and who recovery, As to the extent of time it accrued. cause of action from the capacity in her as admin- fact that added.) (Emphasis be limit might istratrix undеr Colorado law statute, the un- borrowing apart from The recovery expenses to burial does ed in her exception, purpose derscored serves on her place any serve to limitations flocking from preventing shoppers forum act,39 recovery here. Our death longer limita- advantage to take on recovery, allowing no limitation places adverse precludes any and thus period, damages all the for “such ... as under opin- approach from the taken effect just.” be circumstances case ion. statutory prob our to the Again, approach against strong public policy lem evidences The outcome further conforms damages. plain- being placed on Since strong public policy regarding limitations Utah’s limiting bring foreign death ac- law rights application of a state’s tiff’s 16, to this damages stated in Article 5 of would do violence tion as Section such own apply we are constrained to our policy, Utah Constitution: concerning this matter.40 law right damages of action to recover injuries resulting in death shall never concerning of the issue disposition Our abrogated and the amount recoverable be makes judgment the Colorado the effect of subject limi- any statutory shall not adoрtion governmental an unnecessary tation. .. ap- as analysis41 the choice-of-law interest as advocated Finally, application of our statute of for this proach We for an- discriminatory limitations does not have the therefore save that plaintiff. “an uneven hand” on causes laying day. effect of other Co., Ry. (Ill.1973); Knight v. W. Moline E.M. &

35. Section 78-12^45. 160, (1913). N.W. 160 Iowa 140 839 Co., supra, at 36. Wells v. Simonds Abrasive 518, 858; also, 73 at First National 78-11-7. S.Ct. see 39. Section Lines, Chicago Bank of 396, v. Air 342 U.S. United 421, (1952), rehearing Inc., Airlines, 72 96 L.Ed. 441 Kilberg N.Y.2d 9 v. Northeast 921, 675, denied, 133, 34, (N.Y. 96 L.Ed. 343 U.S. N.Y.S.2d 172 N.E.2d 526 211 1334; Fetter, Hughes 71 1961). v. 1212 95 L.Ed. clearly approach perhaps set most 41. This Hall, 440 Supreme 37. Nevada v. U.S. out in a series California denied, (1979), rehеaring Traynor’s beginning 59 L.Ed.2d fa- with Justice decisions Hughes Purcell, L.Ed.2d opinion v. Reich 67 Cal.2d mous Fetter, supra. (1967), Cal.Rptr. v. and fol- 432 P.2d 727 63 lowed, others, Superior among v. Hurtado Court, See, Cal.Rptr. g., Dynamics P.2d 666 Furman e. v. General Club, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1974); Corp., 16 Cal.3d and Bernhard Harrah’s Coan Aircraft, (1976). Cal.Rptr. 53 N.E.2d 588 546 P.2d 719 Cessna Ill.2d 293 128 352 my it is foregoing ‍‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍analysis, the Applying we hold that summary,

In is res decision the Colorado opinion exercised the may be this case properly present ac- bars the judicata and therefore court, judgment and the Colorado Utah same. are the Clearly parties the of this action in the tion. litigation not bar does Furthermore, judgment District there has been judgment court. The Utah ruled that mаtter remanded and the the merits. The Colorado Court is reversed an action for merits. Costs to that court trial on the the statute of limitations for substantive, is plaintiff. to death Colorado as the limitation inasmuch procedural,4 very pro- the act is contained within period CROCKETT, J., and MAUGHAN C. Therefore, the failure recovery.5 viding STEWART, JJ., concur. statutory the an action within to commence right loss of the resulted in a period HALL, (dissenting): Justice is on the merits. of the action dismissal dissent. respectfully I claim arises out Finally, majority of the Court disagree I with the forming the basis of same cause of action and credit treatment of the full faith its instance, the In еach prior litigation. judicata which of res issue and doctrine damages for the recovery was theory of it operative.1 makes dece- plaintiff’s death of alleged dent. the assertion of an judicata precludes Res was or should been entire claim which traditionally has adhered to the Utah generally raised in a action.2 It prior the full faith and credit clause mandate of this, jurisdictions, accepted in as in other in sister states are judgments that final (1) applicable properly the doctrine is Hence, effect.6 given conclusive prior litiga- parties as between the decision which should abide thе Colorado tion; proceeded prior where the wrongful death was recovery held that merits; (3) where on the judgment instant case. I would not warranted in the out of the subsequent dispute arises the trial court’s decision. therefore affirm forming same the basis of cause of action I Notwithstanding foregoing, deem it rendering In its deci- prior litigation.3 points other dis- to address two necessary sion, Court concluded majority. cussed were parties sought and relief in that case majority’s is with the previously My

different from the decided feder- first concern Therefore, borrowing statute.7 I al case. the federal decision was treatment of Utah’s person if a is a agree principle suit. with the judicata not res as to the Colorado However, he is entitled to the benefits the crucial is whether citizen of Utah However, such a determi- judicata as to the of the statute.8 Colorado suit is res is a factual matter to be decided instant Utah suit. nation Am.Jur.2d, comparable holdings, see Gaston v. B. F. Judgments, 5. For 1. 47 1226. § Walker, 1968); Bengston (5th 400 F.2d 671 Cir. Nesheim, Inc., Utah, (9th 1958); Texaco, Cali- v. 259 F.2d 566 Cir. 2. See Belliston v. 521 P.2d Copus, Ingersoll (1974); Bordeaux v. Rand fornia v. 158 Tex. 309 S.W.2d Com- pany, (1967). (1958). 71 Wash.2d 429 P.2d 207 Pearson, Duquesne, 3. Wheadon v. 14 Utah 2d 376 P.2d 2d Re Estate of 6. 29 Utah Company (1962); East Mill Water Creek (1973); Intermountain Association P.2d 779 City, Watterson, Salt Lake 108 Utah 159 P.2d 863 Men v. Utah 2d Credit Casualty Company v. Mid-Continent (1967). P.2d 818 Everett, (10th 1965). 340 F.2d 65 Cir. U.C.A., 1953, 78-12-45. 4. That a sister state as Utah looks to the law of procedure, to whether a matter is substantive Lines, Greyhound Allen v. 583 P.2d 613 Maddison, Buhler 176 P.2d see (1978). s Although plaintiff living trial court.9 Utah, appar were located she quarters

ently considered herself to be resident ‍‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍of Colorado,10 voted re

Colorado. Plaintiff

ceived mail in and conducted her view, my

business In there Colorado. plain as to where question

exists factual resided,

tiff which the trial court upon have rule. opportunity

should an to

Second, I disagree majority’s with jurisdiction.

resolution issue as to Heitner,11 United States Su

preme satisfy Court held that de

mands of process, due the same standard

applies jurisdiction in rem as for quasi Therefore,

in personam jurisdiction. adopted respect

standard long-arm apply.

our statute must “Mini basically

mum a factual contacts” matter determination,

best left the trial court’s

especially expressly it has deferred when

ruling upon jurisdiction.12 least,

At the I would remand for a very plaintiff’s residency, as to

determination

and whether lies.

STATE of Plaintiff

Respondent, Wesley McCUMBER,

George Appellant.

Defendant and

No. 16716.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. jurisdiction Id. 12. Even concedes that questions al should for further be remanded Colorado, person 10. To vote in must evidentiary hearing, inasmuch as she admits C.R.S., resident of Colorado. 1-2-101. pleadings contain do not sufficient meet the evidence to Shaffer standard. 11. 433 U.S. 53 L.Ed.2d 683 notes survives, repre- Reynolds, and the cause of action his 33. Switzer v. 606 P.2d

Case Details

Case Name: Rhoades v. Wright

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 26, 1980

Citation: 622 P.2d 343

Docket Number: 16246

Court Abbreviation: Utah