outside of , the United States-r-is not a question that concerns federal law or the federal law of foreign relations. State courts often adjudicate actions brought against United States citizens for torts committed in foreign countries. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Aguiniga et al., 9 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied); Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085 (Fla. 2013) (plaintiff, a United States citizen brought an action against a United States corporation for a sexual assault that occurred in Mexico); Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., v. Arteaga, 113 A.3d 1045 (Del. 2015) (Mexican representatives of Mexican citizens who were killed in a helicopter crash in Mexico brought suit against an American corporation); Griffen v. State of Iowa, 767 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 2009) (<HOLDING>). In.fact, Texas state law explicitly provides
holding that the iowa tort claims act allows claims for torts committed in foreign countries holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act recognizing that any claims compensable under the act could not be brought by nonemployee spouse except for intentional tort claims