A party injured cannot generally main tain an action for the injury if caused in any degree by his own contributory negli gence. See NEGLIGENCE.
An action to recover damages for a tort is transitory, and can, as a general rule, be maintained wherever the wrongdoer can be found ; Dennick v. R. Co., 103 U. S. 11, 26 L. Ed. 439; Stewart v. R. Co., 168 U. S. 445, 18 Sup. Ct. 105, 42 L. Ed. 537.
An action for tort causing death, in a state where the statute has provided a right of ac tion therefor, can be maintained in any oth er state in which the common law obstacle to such an action has been removed, if the statute of the place where the cause of ac tion arose is not in substance inconsistent with the statutes or public policy of the state in which the right of action is sought to be enforced; Stewart v. R. Co., 168 U. S. 445, 18 Sup. Ct. 105, 42 L. Ed. 537.
A corporation of Colorado domiciled in Texas, whose line railroad extends into Mexico, fatally injured an emp'oyd working in its yard in Mexico. An action was brought in the circuit court of the United S'ates on the ground of diverse citi7ensh'p. Tile two countries concur in holding that the act com plained of is the subject of legal redress, and the question was whether recovery must be defeated because the law of Mexico con trolled and could not be enforced in Texas. It was held that a common law action could not be maintained where the right of recov ery given by a foreign country is so dissimi lar to that given by the law of the state in which the action is brought as to be incapa ble of enforcement in such state; Slater v. R. Co., 194 U. S. 120, 24 Sup. Ct. 581, 48 L. Ed. 900.
The term tort in reference to admiralty jurisdiction is not confined to wrongs or in juries committed by direct force, but it in cludes wrongs suffered in consequence of the negligence or malfeasance of others where the remedy at common law is by an action on the case; Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U. S.
626, 26 L. Ed. 1192.
Where a tort is committed partly on land and partly on water, the question whether admiralty has jurisdiction over it is deter mined by the locus of the damage and not that of the origin of the tort; as where the plaintiff working in the hold of a vessel was injured by a piece of lumber neglt entiy sent down through a chute by a person working on the pier, it was held to be a case of ad miralty jurisdiction; Hermann v. Mill Co., 69 Fed. 646.
Corporations are responsible for acts not strictly within their corporate powers, but done in their corporate name and by corpora tion officers who are competent to exercise the corporate powers. When such acts are not founded on contract, but are arbitrary exercises of power, in the nature of torts, or are quasi-criminal, the corporation may be held to a pecuniary liability for them to the party injured; Salt Lake City v. Hollis ter, 118 U. S. 256, 6 Sup. Ct. 1055, 30 L. Ed. 176; Washington G. L. Co. v. Lansden, 172 U. S. 544, 19 Sup. Ct. 296, 43 L. Ed. 543A A judgment of damages for a tort is not a contract within the constitutional provi sion against the impairment of a contract obligation; Louisiana v. Police Jury, 111 U. S. 716, 4 Sup. Ct. 648, 28 L. Fd. 574; see Sherman v. Langham, 92 Tex. 19, 40 S. W. 140, 42 S. W. 961, 39 L. R. A. 258.
For a classification of torts, see Holland, Jurispr. 316. See Torts before Bracton, Ames, Lect. in Leg. Hist. 39.