Case BriefCivil Procedure, BauerState Law in Federal Courts 2/7/15Identity of CaseErie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)Page 890 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryTompkins was walking through a footpath that had developed along the railroad’s right of way when a protruberance from the train struck him, causing injury. Although Tompkins was a citizen of Pennsylvania, he chose to sue in federal court in NY, where Erie was incorporated, and in doing so chose NY ish state law for his outcome (in NY, where a footpath develops along a train’s right of way, its users are licensees and railroads are responsible). Erie argued that the accident occurred in PA, and PA law should govern (PA law made Tompkins a trespasser). Verdict for Tompkins, affirmed at 2nd circuit, and overturned by SCOTUS. Statement of the IssueWhen the federal court has jurisdiction because of the diversity of the parties, on a civil claim, which law governs? HoldingHeld, state law where the accident occurred or as otherwise governed by state-made law.ReasoningThe law is supposed to instruct people how to avoid liability and avoid committing crimes. We need horizontal uniformity (uniformity on state law between state and federal district courts) in order for the law to serve that function. Black & White and Swift v. Tyson were misguided in that they prevented the preferred result from happening.
View Full Document
Unlocking...