tained, it necessarily follows that an infant may maintain an action against its own mother for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the mother while pregnant with it.17

20

139. Law Governing Action.-Where an action is brought in one jurisdiction for alleged negligent acts that occurred in another jurisdiction, all matters relating to the right of action are governed, according to the general rule,18 by the lex loci delicti.19 And, although statutes can have no extraterritorial force or effect ex proprio vigore,2 yet an action for negligence which is based upon statutory enactment may be maintained in another jurisdiction, if it is not opposed to the public policy of the forum. Modern authority holds that to defeat the plaintiff's right of action in such case it must be made to appear that such right is against good morals or natural justice, or that for some other reason an enforcement of it would be prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of the state of the forum; and that it does not follow that because the statute differs from the law of the forum, it is contrary to the public policy of the state.1 Questions relating to negligence causing personal injuries are usually regarded as questions of general law, as to which the federal courts are not concluded by the decisions of the state courts.2

140. Functions of Court and Jury.-Negligence cases in which a nonsuit may be allowed are exceptional. The issue or issues of negligence and contributory negligence are as a rule to be determined by the jury, and ordinarily should not be disposed of by the court in a peremptory manner. When, however, the undisputed evidence.

17. Allaire v. St. Luke's Hospital, 184 Ill. 359, 56 N. E. 638, 75 A. S. R. 176, 48 L.R.A. 225.

18. See CONFLICT OF LAWS, vol. 5, p. 1036.

45 A. S. R. 799; Promer v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 90 Wis. 215, 63 N. W. 90, 48 A. S. R. 905.

4. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Seaver, 19 Wall. 531, 22 U. S. (L. ed.) 155; Kane v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 128 U. S. 91, 9 S. Ct. 16, 32 U. S. (L. ed.) 339; Jones v. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 20. See CONFLICT OF LAWS, vol. 5, 128 U. S. 443, 9 S. Ct. 118, 32 U. S. p. 1037.

19. Rick v. Saginaw Bay Towing Co., 132 Mich. 237, 93 N. W. 632, 102 A. S. R. 422.

1. Rick v. Saginaw Bay Towing Co., 132 Mich. 237, 93 N. W. 632, 102 A. S. R. 422.

2. Note: 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 437.

(L. ed.) 478; Dunlap v. Northeastern R. Co., 130 U. S. 649, 9 S. Ct. 647, 32 U. S. (L. ed.) 1058; Elliott v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 U. S. 245, 14 S. Ct. 85, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 1068; Hackfield v. United States, 197 U. S. 442, 25 S. Ct. 456, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 826; Kreigh v. Westinghouse, 214 U. S. 249, 29 S. Ct. 619, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 984; Smith v. Day, 100 Fed. 244, 40 C. C. A. 366, 49 L.R.A. 108; Cary v. Morrison, 129 Fed. 177, 63 C. C. A. 267, 65 L.R.A. 659; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Arnold, 84 Ala. 159, 4 So. 359, 5 A. S. R. 354; Kansas City,

3. Redington v. Pacific Postal Tel. Cable Co., 107 Cal. 317, 40 Pac. 432, 48 A. S. R. 132; Woodson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 224 Mo. 685, 123 S. W. 820, 20 Ann. Cas. 1039, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 931; Creed v. Hartmann, 29 N. Y. 591, 86 Am. Dec. 341; Durbin v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 17 Ore. 5, 17 Pac. 5, 11 A. S. R. 778; McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119,

is so conclusive that the court would be compelled to set aside a verdict returned in opposition to it, it may withdraw the case from

etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 25, 8 mons v. New Bedford, etc., Steamboat So. 43, 24 A. S. R. 753; Birmingham R. etc., Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A 543; Gerke v. California Steam Nav. Co., 9 Cal. 251, 70 Am. Dec. 650; Driscoll v. Market St. Cable R. Co., 97 Cal. 553, 32 Pac. 591, 33 A. S. R. 203; Colorado Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505, 19 Pac. 479, 7 A. S. R. 255; Farrier v. Colorado Springs Rapid Transit R. Co., 42 Colo. 331, 95 Pac. 294, 126 A. S. R. 158; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 115 Ga. 315, 41 S. E. 631, 90 A. S. R. 116; Powell v. Berry, 145 Ga. 696, 89 S. E. 753, L.R.A.1917A 306; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Crose, 214 Ill. 602, 73 N. E. 865, 105 A. S. R. 135; Kennedy v. Swift, 234 Ill. 606, 85 N. E. 287, 123 A. S. R. 113; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Parish, 28 Ind. App. 189, 62 N. E. 514, 91 A. S. R. 120; Parish v. Williams, 88 Ia. 66, 55 N. W. 74, 20 L.R.A. 273; Reipe v. Elting, 89 Ia. 82, 56 N. W. 285, 48 A. S. R. 356, 26 L.R.A. 769; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Ia. 250, 121 N. W. 676, 139 A. S. R. 420, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 338; Cummings v. Wichita R., etc., Co., 68 Kan. 218, 74 Pac. 1104, 1 Ann. Cas. 708; Kirby v. Union Pac. R. Co., 94 Kan. 485, 146 Pac. 1183, L.R.A.1916E 528; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 114, 87 Am. Dec. 486; Long v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ky. 26, 107 S. W. 203, 16 Ann. Cas. 673, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1063; Jonas v. South Covington, etc., R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 S. W. 131, Ann. Cas. 1916E 965; Ober v. Crescent City R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1059, 11 So. 818, 32 A. S. R. 366; Patten v. Bartlett, 111 Me. 409, 89 Atl. 375, 49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1120; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378, 90 Am. Dec. 49; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 420, 96 Am. Dec. 545; People's Bank v. Morgolofski, 75 Md. 432, 23 Atl. 1027, 32 A. S. R. 403; Fox v. Sackett, 10 Allen (Mass.) 535, 87 Am. Dec. 682; Sim

Co., 97 Mass. 361, 93 Am. Dec. 99; Briggs v. Union St. R. Co., 148 Mass. 72, 19 N. E. 19, 12 A. S. R. 518; Creamer v. West End St. R. Co., 156 Mass. 320, 31 N. E. 391, 32 A. S. R. 456, 16 L.R.A. 490; Cross v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Mich. 363, 37 N. W. 361, 13 A. S. R. 399; Dundas v. Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011, 13 A. S. R. 457, 5 L.R.A. 143; Roux v. Blodgett, etc., Lumber Co., 85 Mich. 519, 48 N. W. 1092, 24 A. S. R. 102, 13 L.R.A. 728; Graves v. Battle Creek, 95 Mich. 266, 54 N. W. 757, 35 A. S. R. 561, 19 L.R.A. 641; Penrose v. Fehr, 113 Mich. 517, 71 N. W. 862, 67 A. S. R. 479; Kanz v. J. Neils Lumber Co., 114 Minn. 466, 131 N. W. 643, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 269; L. R. Martin Timber Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 123 Minn. 423, 144 N. W. 145, Ann. Cas. 1915A 496; Owens v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 94 Miss. 378, 47 So. 518, 136 A. S. R. 579; Barton v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 52 Mo. 253, 14 Am. Rep. 418; Weber v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 100 Mo. 194, 12 S. W. 804, 13 S. W. 587, 18 A. S. R. 541, 7 L.R.A. 819; Murray v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 236, 13 S. W. 817, 20 A. S. R. 601; Rosenkranz v. Lindell R. Co., 108 Mo. 9, 18 S. W. 890, 32 A. S. R. 588; Burger v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 112 Mo. 238, 20 S. W. 439, 34 A. S. R. 379; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 133 Mo. 168, 31 S. W. 115, 34 S. W. 508, 34 L.R.A. 118, overruled on another point by Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 620, 67 S. W. 610, 57 L.R.A. 136; American Brewing Ass'n V. Talbot, 141 Mo. 674, 42 S. W. 679, 64 A. S. R. 538; Prosser v. Montana Cent. R. Co., 17 Mont. 372, 43 Pac. 81, 30 L.R.A. 814; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271, 69 Am. Dec. 546; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Middleton, 57 N. J. L. 154, 31 Atl. 616, 51 A. S. R. 597; New York, etc., R. Co. v. New Jersey Electric R. Co., 60 N. J. L. 52, 37 Atl. 627, 38 L.R.A. 516; Driscoll v. Newark, etc., Lime, etc., Co., 37 N. Y.

the consideration of the jury, and direct a verdict. The practice varies, however, in different jurisdictions. According to the rule announced in some states, the question as to what acts do or do not constitute negligence is exclusively for determination by the jury, except in those cases where a particular act is declared to be negli

gence either by statute or by a valid ordinance of a municipal corporation."

141. Certainty as to Facts and Conclusions Therefrom.-The right of a party to have the jury pass upon the question of liability becomes absolute where the facts are in dispute and the evidence is conflicting,8 or when the proof discloses such a state of facts that, in essaying to fix responsibility for the injury or damage, different minds may arrive at different conclusions.9 The question of the defendant's

7. Inland, etc., Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551, 11 S. Ct. 653, 35 U. S. (L. ed.) 270; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 115 Ga. 315, 41 S. E. 631, 90 A. S. R. 116.

Oil Co., 34 S. C. 211, 13 S. E. 419, 27
A. S. R. 815; Weaver v. Southern Ry.,
76 S. C. 49, 56 S. E. 657, 121 A. S. R.
934; Lane v. Spokane Falls, etc., R.
Co., 21 Wash. 119, 57 Pac. 367, 75 A.
S. R. 821, 46 L.R.A. 153; Ewing v.
Lanark Fuel Co., 65 W. Va. 726, 65
S. E. 200, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 487.

8. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, 10 S. Ct. 1044, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 235; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 9. Washington, etc., R. Co. v. McS. Ct. 557, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 284; Rich- Dade, 135 U. S. 554, 10 S. Ct. 1044, 34 mond, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U. S. U. S. (L. ed.) 235; Washington, etc., 43, 13 S. Ct. 748, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 642; R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 Price v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Ark. S. Ct. 557, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 284; 479, 88 S. W. 575, 112 A. S. R. 79; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 149 Williams v. Sleepy Hollow Min. Co., U. S. 43, 13 S. Ct. 748, 37 U. S. 37 Colo. 62, 86 Pac. 337, 11 Ann. Cas. (L. ed.) 642; Gardner v. Michigan 111, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1170; Colum- Cent. R. Co., 150 U. S. 349, 14 S. Ct. bian Enameling, etc., Co. v. Burke, 140, 37 U. S. (L. ed.) 1107; Baltimore, 37 Ind. App. 518, 77 N. E. 409, etc., R. Co. v. Griffith, 159 U. S. 603, 117 A. S. R. 337; Watson v. Port- 16 S. Ct. 105, 40 U. S. (L. ed.) 274; land, etc., R. Co., 91 Me. 584, 40 Atl. Warner v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 168 699, 64 A. S. R. 268, 44 L.R.A. 157; U. S. 339, 18 S. Ct. 68, 42 U. S. (L. Quirk v. Holt, 99 Mass. 164, 96 Am. ed.) 491; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Carlin, Dec. 725; Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1, 111 Fed. 777, 49 C. C. A. 605, 60 46 N. W. 21, 21 A. S. R. 549; Johnson L.R.A. 462; O'Connor v. Armour v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 11 Minn. 296, Packing Co., 158 Fed. 241, 85 C. C. A. 88 Am. Dec. 83; Moon v. Northern 459, 14 Ann. Cas. 66, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) Pac. R. Co., 46 Minn. 106, 48 N. W. 812; Winona v. Botzet, 169 Fed. 321, 679, 24 A. S. R. 194; Brotherton v. 94 C. C. A. 563, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 204; Manhattan Beach Imp. Co., 48 Neb. Redington v. Pacific Postal Tel. Cable 563, 67 N. W. 479, 58 A. S. R. 709, Co., 107 Cal. 317, 40 Pac. 432, 48 A. 33 L.R.A. 598; Creed v. Hartmann, 29 S. R. 132; Still v. San Francisco, etc., N. Y. 591, 86 Am. Dec. 341; Wallace R. Co., 154 Cal. 559, 98 Pac. 672, 129 v. Western North Carolna R. Co., 98 A. S. R. 177, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 322; N. C. 494, 4 S. E. 503, 2 A. S. R. Vindicator Consol. Gold Min. Co. v. 346; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Wilker, Firstbrook, 36 Colo. 498, 86 Pac. 313, 16 Okla. 384, 84 Pac. 1086, 3 L.R.A. 10 Ann. Cas. 1108; Williams v. Sleepy (N.S.) 595; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hollow Min. Co., 37 Colo. 62, 86 Pac. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. 60, 78 Am. Dec. 322; 337, 11 Ann. Cas. 111, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) Johnson v. Bruner, 61 Pa. St. 58, 100 1170; Denver v. Maurer, 47 Colo. 209, Am. Dec. 613; Vannatta v. Central R. 106 Pac. 875, 135 A. S. R. 210; Tully Co., 154 Pa. St. 262, 26 Atl. 384, 35 A. v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 2 Penn. S. R. 823; McCracken v. Consolidated (Del.) 537, 47 Atl. 1019, 82 A. S. R. Traction Co., 201 Pa. St. 378, 50 Atl. 425; Szymanski v. Blumenthal, 4 Penn. 830, 88 A. S. R. 814; Carter v. Oliver (Del.) 511, 56 Atl. 674, 103 A. S. R.

liability lawfully can be withdrawn from the jury and determined by the court as a question of law, when and only when the facts are undisputable,10 being stipulated,11 found by the court or jury,12 or established by evidence that is free from conflict, 18 and when the

16 Okla. 384, 84 Pac. 1086, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 595; Johnson v. Bruner, 61 Pa. St. 58, 100 Am. Dec. 613; Vannatta v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 154 Pa. St. 262, 26 Atl. 384, 35 A. S. R. 823; Lehner v. Pittsburg R. Co., 223 Pa. St. 208, 72 Atl. 525, 132 A. S. R. 729, 16 Ann. Cas. 83; Wade v. Columbia Electric St. R., etc., Co., 51 S. C. 296, 29 S. E. 233, 64 A. S. R. 676; Weaver v. Southern Ry., 76 S. C. 49, 56 S. E. 657, 121 A. S. R. 934; Lowe v. Southern Ry., 85 S. C. 363, 67 S. E. 460, 137 A. S. R. 904; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 91, 44 Pac. 1050, 57 A. S. R. 708; Raines v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 39 W. Va. 50, 19 S. E. 565, 24 L.R.A. 226; Valin v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 82 Wis. 1, 51 N. W. 1084, 33 A. S. R. 17; Salladay v. Dodgeville, 85 Wis. 318, 55 N. W. 696, 20 L.R.A. 541.

132; Queen Anne's R. Co. v. Reed, 5 Penn. (Del.) 226, 59 Atl. 860, 119 A. S. R. 301; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Liderman, 187 Ill. 463, 58 N. E. 367, 79 A. S. R. 226, 52 L.R.A. 655; Mathews v. Cedar Rapids, 80 Ia. 459, 45 N. W. 894, 20 A. S. R. 436; Tobey v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 94 Ía. 256, 62 N. W. 761, 33 L.R.A. 496; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Ia. 250, 121 N. W. 676, 139 A. S. R. 420, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 338; Cummings v. Wichita R., etc., Co., 68 Kan. 218, 74 Pac. 1104, 1 Ann. Cas. 708; Long v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 128 Ky. 26, 107 S. W. 203, 16 Ann. Cas. 673, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1063; Nugent v. Boston, etc., R., 80 Me. 62, 12 Atl. 797, 6 A. S. R. 151; Watson v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 91 Me. 584, 40 Atl. 699, 64 A. S. R. 268, 44 L.R.A. 157; Harris v. Clinton Tp., 64 Mich. 447, 31 N. W. 425, 8 A. S. R. 842; Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 271, 44 N. W. 270, 18 A. S. R. 41; Roux v. Blodgett, etc., Lumber Co., 85 Mich. 519, 48 N. W. 1092, 24 A. S. R. 102, 13 L.R.A. 728; Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Co., 83 Minn. 25, 85 N. W. 826, 85 A. S. R. 440; Dixon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 109 Mo. 413, 19 S. W. 412, 18 L.R.A. 792; Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co., 44 Neb. 167, 62 N. W. 447, 48 A. S. R. 717; Brotherton v. Manhattan Beach Imp. Co., 48 Neb. 563, 67 N. W. 479, 58 A. S. R. 709, 33 L.R.A. 598; Hair v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 84 Neb. 398, 121 N. W. 439, 133 A. S. R. 629; Crabtree v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 86 Neh. 33, 124 N. W. 932, 136 A. S. R. 663; Burch v. Southern Pac. Co., 32 Nev. 75, 104 Pac. 225, Ann. Cas. 1912B 1166; Hewett v. Women's Hospital Aid Ass'n, 73 N. H. 556, 64 Atl. 190, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 496: Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 N. J. L. 682, 34 Atl. 1094, 55 A. S. R. 620, 33 L.R.A. 122; Deans v. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 107 N. C. 686, 12 S. E. 77, 22 A. S. R. 215. 902; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Wilker. 13. Cary v. Morrison, 129 Fed. 177,

10. McIntyre v. Orner, 166 Ind. 57, 76 N. E. 750, 117 A. S. R. 359, 8 Ann. Cas. 1087, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1130; Creamer v. West End St. R. Co., 156 Mass. 320, 31 N. E. 391, 32 A. S. R. 456, 16 L.R.A. 490; Bridges v. Jackson Electric R., etc., Co., 86 Miss. 584, 38 So. 788, 4 Ann. Cas. 662; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 98 Am. Dec. 58; McDonald v. Long Island R. Co., 116 N. Y. 546, 22 N. E. 1068, 15 A. S. R. 437; Mitchell v.. Raleigh Electric Co., 129 N. C. 166, 39 S. E. 801, 85 A. S. R. 735, 55 L.R.A. 398; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 298, 57 Am. Dec. 654; Corbin v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St. 461, 45 Atl. 1070, 78 A. S. R. 825, 49 L.R.A. 715; Gibson v. Huntington, 38 W. Va. 177, 18 S. E. 447, 45 A. S. R. 853, 22 L.R.A. 561.

11. Cary v. Morrison, 129 Fed. 177, 63 C. C. A. 267, 65 L.R.A. 659; Magoffin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 540. 15 S. W. 76, 22 A. S. R. 798.

12. Brummit V. Furness, 1 Ind. App. 401, 27 N. E. 656, 50 A. S. R.