## Facts

- Dennis F. Waller was an employee of Spartan Aircraft Company (Spartan), an Oklahoma corporation that manufactured mobile homes.
- As part of his job, Spartan sent Waller to Turkey to perform repair work on mobile homes belonging to a pipeline company.
- While Waller was in Turkey, Spartan directed him to perform similar repair work on mobile homes located at a remote oil-well drilling site maintained by Tidewater Oil Company (Tidewater).
- Tidewater agreed to transport Waller to the drilling site by airplane.
- During an attempted landing at the drilling-site airstrip, the airplane crashed and Waller suffered serious injuries.
- Waller filed a diversity negligence action against Tidewater in federal district court in Oklahoma, alleging negligent operation of the aircraft and an unsafe landing strip.
- Waller also alleged that Turkish law governed and that, under Turkish law, Tidewater owed him a duty of ordinary care in operating the aircraft and providing a reasonably safe place to land.
- After filing the tort suit, Waller filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Oklahoma Workmen’s Compensation Commission; the commission held the claim in abeyance pending the litigation.
- Tidewater asserted that Waller’s claim was governed exclusively by workers’ compensation law (either Turkey’s or Oklahoma’s) and that the federal court therefore lacked jurisdiction over a tort action.
- At trial, no party introduced evidence proving the content of Turkish law on liability, defenses, or remedies.
- The district court proceeded on the premise that Turkish law permitted recovery on the pleaded negligence theory as if the injury had occurred in Oklahoma, and the case was submitted to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for Waller, and Tidewater appealed.

## Issues

1. When the parties contend that Turkish law governs a tort occurring in Turkey but present no proof of that law, may the court proceed by applying forum negligence principles (or presuming foreign law is materially similar) to decide liability?
2. Did Tidewater establish that workers’ compensation (under Turkish law or Oklahoma law) provided Waller’s exclusive remedy, barring a negligence action against Tidewater and defeating the federal court’s jurisdiction?

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Waller.
- The court held that, given the absence of proof of Turkish law, the district court did not commit reversible error by trying the case under ordinary negligence concepts as if recovery were available to the same extent as under forum law.
- The court rejected Tidewater’s attempt to avoid tort liability on the theory that workers’ compensation provided the exclusive remedy on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign law relied upon by a party must be proved; when foreign law is pleaded but not proved, a court may apply forum law (or proceed on the assumption that the foreign law is not materially different for the issues tried).
- A defendant invoking workers’ compensation exclusivity bears the burden to show facts and legal predicates that make compensation the plaintiff’s sole remedy against that defendant.
- The filing of a workers’ compensation claim that is held in abeyance, without a final compensation determination shown on the record, does not by itself bar a concurrent negligence action against an alleged third-party tortfeasor.

## Conclusion

Waller, an Oklahoma employee injured in Turkey when Tidewater’s plane crashed while landing at a remote drilling-site airstrip, could pursue a diversity negligence action against Tidewater. Because neither side proved Turkish tort law at trial, the federal court was permitted to decide the case using forum negligence principles (or on the assumption Turkish law allowed comparable recovery). Tidewater also failed to show that workers’ compensation law supplied Waller’s exclusive remedy against Tidewater, so the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Waller.


Tidewater Oil Company v. Waller, 302 F.2d 638 (1962)