Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hughes v. Fetter

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConflict of LawsWrongful DeathComityFull Faith and Creditwrongful deathforum policycomity

Facts

Wisconsin's wrongful-death statute permits recovery for death by wrongful act, but provides that the action must be brought for a death caused in Wisconsin. The plaintiff sought to maintain in Wisconsin an action for a death caused in Illinois, apparently under the Illinois wrongful-death statute. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Wisconsin's statute barred the action. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Issue

May a Wisconsin court entertain a wrongful-death action for a death caused in Illinois, notwithstanding Wisconsin Statute section 331.03's proviso that such actions shall be brought only for a death caused in Wisconsin? Relatedly, does either the federal Constitution or comity require Wisconsin courts to hear such an action?

Rule

Because the right to recover for wrongful death is purely statutory, a Wisconsin court cannot entertain such an action unless it falls within Wisconsin Statute section 331.03, which limits the action to a death caused in Wisconsin. Neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor the Privileges and Immunities Clause compels Wisconsin to enforce another state's wrongful-death statute, and comity does not require enforcement when doing so would conflict with a forum policy positively expressed by statute.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez, a Wisconsin resident, sues in a Wisconsin court after her brother was fatally injured in Minnesota by alleged negligence of Great North Milling, a fictional company based in Duluth. She pleads a wrongful-death claim created by Minnesota statute. Wisconsin has a statute authorizing wrongful-death actions only for a death caused in Wisconsin.

Should the Wisconsin court entertain the action?

Explanation. The majority treated wrongful-death as a purely statutory right and enforced Wisconsin's proviso limiting such actions to deaths caused in Wisconsin. A Wisconsin court therefore cannot maintain a foreign wrongful-death action for a death caused elsewhere. Comity does not override an express contrary statute, and reciprocity is not required for the bar to apply. (Derived from Hughes v. Fetter (n.d.).)