OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY **GENERAL** OF TEXAS AUSTIN

3noraMe 7. 9. fllll, Xeimbar IzCustriai

Accident Boar8 sAi3tAIl~ Texas

servicingthe into. Texas?
1930,requesting bove stated QLESof the letter Sherrill,attorzzy, rkmn' 8 Compa~saes enolosad ia

nsus El2otric-Co8 domiciled in 8uthorizut-i

to t‘rcnsate of Texas and has rt line into Texas from 1398s et Texarkar;a.Lt any mea constantlyin exas, but in its operations
zs a?loyees necessary into the State of Tcxzs to aarry on the busi3188s there. They all, however, return to headquarterset Texarkana, :XkBELSaS.EonorvbleT. ii. Hill, page 2

*'The 'question

hes &risen before the 3mid es to whet&r or not it is nooessrry for this Cooperativeto maintaine Korkmen~:+ Comgensatlon

insurancagollpy to cover the activitiesof,

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 Coogeretlve who are injured-while working in Texas to recover compensation fro;3 the Cooperative

under the laws of the state of Texas or would the State of Terss require such employeeto pursue his remaaies in the State of Arkansas sinoe his aotivitfes in Texas wo~alC only be inoidentelto hi? Arkensaoemployment.

"It is zi+

understanding

tbst you law exempts 'employers

of less t&n three employees frola the provisionsof the Texas Conponeation irct. %oulLthe Arkansas Corporationborequired to have.three.employees employedsolely in the State of Texas to make this law applloableto them, or would it be aggllcableto them if they e&Aoyeh three or nore employees of the .St&te

of 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 intrustate comerce, your Inquiry resolves itself~Gito thb Sol1owfng tvio~questions:

1. Is the SouthwestArkansasBlcctric Cooperative

Cor$orstfon,

who sends three or
more of its i*rkansns onsloyces into the State of Taxes for the pirjose of servvfoing its .ahort line'runninginto Texas, subject to the Tcxas~YiorWn*s Compensation Law?

2. If they are not'subjeatto the act, &wjr an e.zqloyee

of the SouthwestArkansas xlectric Cooperative Corporation

mvho is In-,' Juredwhile wor.king ln Texas sue, his Z@OYer under the laws of the state of Texas?'EonorableP. 3. ilill, page 3

Section 2 or Article a306, Eeviaea Statutes' of Texas,relating tc the ii'orkmenVs Compensation

Luw, reads &E fOl.iOVJS:

"The pFOQidOIlS of %his la,w~shjll not n~?ly to aotionato recover demeges for per3ora.l injuriesnor ror death resuiting frou -,ersonel

injuriessustninedby'donestio serv&nts

, fernn laborers,

rsnch laborers,
car to euployeoof wzy firm, person or cor~orstlon

having in his or their employ less than three employes,nor to employes of any person,firs, or corporat.ion.operstirig any steam, electrio,street or interurbii;l raiiviay

es e ooiimon

carrier. Rl3 ecgloyer4 three cr more employes s t tizo of beco&n;7,

s subscribershell rmsin LLtnC liobilitfes.

duties end exemptionsof such, notwithst&tiing

sfter hsvln,?

become e subccrioerthe member of emvI.ovesiusy tit times bo le~eas

than three.* .(Un&rscorFng ours)

Se.Otion 1, 02 Artfole 82OQ re&s‘in *t as. follovrs:
*~E.nployer* she31 meon eny person,, flrm;'partnership, associationof persons or corporut%ons

or thelr.lag~l

rcpresentetives that zskes contractsof hire."

The Texas Workuen*sCompensation Lapels en eloctivonet, end the leg&l relation arising between ths ez~loyae,ths ezqo,Dloj~~ end insurer, who bringihe.aocivesvzithin

the.o>erution

of the act, is oontrcctuel~. Th ?&in objactiveOP the sot is to provide, in lieu of cozmor~

law liability,oertain .sndaboolute,coupensation or boaafiteto uqloyees or.the3.r de;idn&ents

In caseswhere .suoh

em~loyeashsvve

roceived.injuries in tf?a curse of their employsentresulting in disability
or Geath. Any employerof lsbor,'unisss he is exwesaly exciutieii

fro.mtheoaaration of the la-d, is sl;ibject

to the act, und nay bticome :I suhsoribarto the association. Ly co;l$lging

with the sot, the employer bacom6s,~uxcept .d td certain clafins for exemplarydainwgjcs, exempt‘from all coscon .hw or statt&oryliabilityon account of inJuriw sufteredby.his employees. The statutedoes nqijHonor;:ble T. B. Hill, page 4

us5 the word *'regul~Por wre&l.arlyenployed"or WOnployed solelywithin the state" to characterize the continuityof the e;nlloyl;lent

of the three or ore esiployem, To ereqt an e.zployer

Sroathe operationOS the act in Texas on the g-ouhdof rcduationOS nurnbcr OS employees, it viould ai)perr necessary to show t&t tbs nuber oS mployees hss been peranently reducedbelow three. ,~,

IS the SouthwestArkansas Xleatric Cooperative Corporation

does not elect to corm tier the Texas QIorkmn*s Cospeusation

Law, the Guestionthen arises,would one of tmir eZlplOyees

injured in Texas have the right to Sue under the Texas laws and recover a judgstent in 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's coapeasation

act. IS it were not Sor that fact the

case of Sradford Zleqtric Light Co. v. 3ennie X. Clapper, 2.56 U. 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 Identical with the situutionyou inquire about in your letter. %'e'mntion this aase to disti...guish it
as certainlyit would control in this instance if Arkansas bad any Sam of workmen's CogDensation act.
Since the State oS Arkansasdoes hot have a workI*en's compensation

sot, -A%

See1 that the rule OS lcx loci deiectiHuuld apply ii an elnployae of the southwestmicanss ;ilect&‘ic

Cooperative

Corporationwe~‘e

injured in Texas. It is thoroughlyestablished as a gemral rule that the lag OS the place where the injury incurred 16 the law that governs and it applieswith respec t to the substantive -phases OS torts or 'the

actionsthereior. Curtis v. Conpbell,70 Fed. (2d) 81; Lorangerv. Nsdeau, 10 Pac. (2d) 63, at p. 65: Wadcury v. Central~Ver.mnt Railway, 12 hr.3. (2d) 732. In thte ci;ae of Curtis v. Campbell, supra, certioridenied, 55 Sup. Ct. 549, 295 U. S. 737, CircuitJudge XOOlley states the rule OS the iaw of tire

place ln the Sollowlng language:

"The heart OS the titer is thit tbs law OS the plade of a tort gives a *rightOS aotion' .to one fullingwithin its term; and it does 8s giz",;t regard to the residence of the tort-

. In such case 'the law of the placewhere the right of aotionwas acquired or the liability n3s Incurred will govern as to th ;e right of acticjn,f Story 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-8 v. 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., vi. 1165. et alvs.Mi.fler, et al, 128 S.

You are respectfully advised tint it is the opinion of this departmentthat the 5outhwestArkansas SlectrloCooperativeCorporation may elect to come under the ;iorkinen~s Coxpensation.Law

of Texas. However., If the companydoes not choo.se to come under the Korkxen'sCompensation Act of Texas, those employeeswho are injured in T&as under the rule of lex loci delectimay pursua their Olalms for damages under the laws of the‘stataof Texas.

Yours very truly

XmORNEY OrnRAL 03 l%xAs

BY (Slgaed)

FredePlk B Isely

Assistant