Civil Procedure

Brief

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

Procedural History:

• Jury awarded Tompkins $30,000 in damages.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed.
• Appealed.
• Reversed.

Facts:

• Slightly after midnight on July 27, 1934, Tompkins was walking home along a well-trodden footpath parallel to the Erie Railroad tracks in Pennsylvania.
• He was struck by a black object that looked like a door protruding from a passing train.
• As a result, Tompkins arm was severed.
• Under Pennsylvania law: a traveler such as Tompkins was regarded as a trespasser and the railroad thus only owes a duty to avoid wanton negligence.
• The majority rule in most states: The railroad owes a duty of ordinary care to a traveler on a parallel footpath.
• Tompkins lawyers were well aware of the rule in Swift that, absent state statutory law, federal courts apply “general law” and thus they tried to avoid the harsh Pennsylvania law by suing the New York based railroad in federal court.

Issue:

• Was the court correct in applying federal “general law” instead of state law in the current case?

Holding:

• No

Reasoning:

• The court in the instant case disproves the Swift v. Tyson law.
• The court rules that federal courts must apply the law of the state as well as statutory law.
• The federal court does not have the power to declare general law when the State law is applicable.
• Federal courts exercising jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases would apply as their rules of decision the law of the state, unwritten as well as written.
• The court overruled Swift v. Tyson by declaring that it is an unconstitutional assumption of powers by the Court of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make them hesitate to correct.
  • The swift case is flawed because it allows forum shopping which allows persons to take advantage of laws more favorable to one party.