## Facts

- William H. Slater, a Texas resident employed as a switchman by the Mexican National Railroad Company (a Colorado corporation operating rail service between Texas and Mexico), was killed in Mexico while coupling freight cars, allegedly due to the railroad’s negligence.
- Slater’s widow and children sued in federal court in Texas seeking damages for his death.
- The claim was pleaded under Mexican statutes (including provisions describing civil liability arising from conduct contrary to penal law and defining “reparation” to include payment of damages to the injured party and family).
- At trial, the jury was instructed to measure damages by the money value of Slater’s life to the widow and children and returned a lump-sum verdict apportioned among them, consistent with the forum’s wrongful-death approach.
- The defendant argued that the Mexican-law right and remedy were not enforceable in a common-law action in Texas federal court; the trial court rejected that position.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered dismissal; the Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court sitting in Texas may maintain a common-law action for a death in Mexico when the asserted right of recovery is created by Mexican statutes and materially differs from the forum’s wrongful-death scheme.
2. Whether a Mexican-law remedy characterized as ongoing, condition-dependent support for dependents may be converted into a lump-sum jury award under the forum’s wrongful-death measure of damages.
3. Whether qualified expert testimony is admissible to construe foreign statutes when certified copies and agreed translations are already in evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering dismissal.
- The Court held that the Mexican statutory right and remedy were so dissimilar to the forum’s wrongful-death framework that they were incapable of enforcement in a Texas common-law action in federal court.
- The Court held that Mexican-law support-type damages could not be commuted into a lump-sum verdict by a jury in such an action.
- The Court held that expert testimony is admissible to address the construction of foreign statutes where interpretive doubt exists, even if the statutory texts and translations are in the record.

## Legal Principles

- A forum may refuse to entertain a foreign-created statutory cause of action when the foreign right and remedial scheme are so different from local law that enforcement would require remaking the claim into a different cause of action.
- A foreign remedial structure requiring ongoing, conditional support to dependents (rather than a fixed valuation of the decedent’s life) is not enforceable through a lump-sum common-law damages verdict when that conversion alters the substance of the foreign remedy.
- In federal court, foreign law may be proved and explained through qualified expert testimony on matters of construction that are reasonably doubtful, notwithstanding the presence of authenticated statutes and translations.

## Conclusion

Because the asserted Mexican-law recovery depended on a remedial scheme of continuing, condition-dependent support that could not be administered through a Texas-style lump-sum wrongful-death verdict without changing the substance of the right, the action was dismissed; expert testimony remained an acceptable means to construe foreign law where needed.


Slater v. Mexican Nat'l R.R. Co., 194 U.S. 120 (1904)