Reynolds v. Day

Citations

• 79 Wash. 499
• 140 P. 681
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1231

Syllabus

<p>Venue — Transitory Actions — Personal Injuries. An action for personal injuries, accruing in another state, is transitory, and1 may be begun in this state wherever service can be had.</p> <p>Courts — Comity—Transitory Action — Master and Servant — Industrial Insurance — Common Law Actions — Public Policy — Constitutional Law — Equal Protection of Laws. The industrial insurance law, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6604-1, declaring that the common law system governing the remedy of workmen against employers in hazardous work is economically unwise and inadequate, and withdrawing the common law action in certain classes of cases in which compensation by industrial insurance is substituted, is not so antagonistic to the common law'action as to warrant a denial of jurisdiction in our own courts of a ease arising at common law in another state in which there is no compensation by industrial insurance, in view of the rule of comity for the recognition of transitory actions not contrary to the public policy of this state nor contrary to abstract justice nor pure morals or calculated to injure this state; especially in view of the provisions of our law authorizing the common law action in all cases where the employer is in default in the payment of his industrial insurance premiums; as it would deny to citizens of other states the same privileges accorded to our own citizens, in violation of § 2, art. 4 of the Federal constitution.</p> <p>Courts — Comity—Expense. The expense to taxpayers and the inconvenience to our courts upon cases arising in other jurisdictions is not a valid1 objection to the indulgence of the principle of comity in actions for personal injuries arising in other states.</p>