36
N.E.
584,
Am.
St.
Rep.
514
FACTS
• 1.
Walsh
was
an
employee
of
defendant
railroad
company
in
the
State
of
ConnecDcut.
Walsh
was
injured
by
a
broken
draw-‐bar
and
brought
an
acDon
for
tort
against
defendant
railroad
company
in
the
State
of
Massachussets.
It
was
not
stated
why
he
chose
to
bring
the
acDon
in
that
forum.
• 2.
The
Trial
Court
of
Massachussets
that
under
its
laws,
the
injury
was
regarded
as
due
to
the
negligence
of
a
fellow
servant,
and
thus
barred
the
plainDff
for
recovery.
ISSUE
Whether
or
not
Walsh
can
recover
for
the
tort
which
happened
in
ConnecDcut
under
the
laws
of
Massachussets?
COURT
RULING
A
MassachuseUs
court
will
enforce
a
right
of
acDon
for
personal
injury
arising
under
the
common
law
of
another
state,
as
there
understood
and
administered,
where
there
is
only
slight
variance
of
view
in
MassachuseUs,
not
amounDng
to
a
fundamental
difference
of
policy,
DOCTRINE
As
between
the
States
of
this
Union,
when
a
transitory
cause
of
acDon
vested
in
one
of
them
under
the
common
law,
the
mere
existence
of
a
slight
variance
of
view
in
the
forum
resorted
to,
not
amounDng
to
a
fundamental
difference
of
policy,
should
not
prevent
an
enforcement
of
the
obligaDon
admiUed
to
have
arisen
by
the
law
which
governed
the
conduct
of
the
parDes.