Vanderbilt Law Review


J. L. Boren Jr.

First Page



Since the introduction of workmen's compensation laws in this country, problems of conflict of laws have been rife. This condition has continued despite the universal adoption of such legislation, because the enactments of the various states differ. State legislatures have varied as to the bases of coverage written into their statutes. Frequently, the terms of more than one workmen's compensation law express coverage of a particular injury. Consequently, problems of the law applicable to a given injury have arisen in many cases and have been widely treated by legal writers.' It is not the purpose of this Note to delve further into such problems. Rather, consideration is directed to the situation of the claimant who finds that the forum in which he most conveniently may press his claim is a jurisdiction whose workmen's compensation law affords him no right to compensation. To what extent will the courts or administrative agencies of the latter jurisdiction grant to the claimant affirmative enforcement of a right to compensation arising under an applicable law of another jurisdiction? Stated differently, how true in the field of workmen's compensation law is the statement, regularly made of divorce proceedings, that a court either will decide under its own law or will not decide at all?