Erie Railroad v. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64 (1938)

What's Going On?

Defendant appeals from a federal appellate court decision that affirmed a judgment for Plaintiff in a negligence action, holding that the district court had the discretion to determine what law was applicable because there was no state statute governing the matter.

Who's Who?

Plaintiff     :

Tompkins – citizen of Pennsylvania, injured by a train on Defendant's railroad.

Defendant :

Erie Railroad Co. – railroad company incorporated in New York.

Facts:

[Plaintiff Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured by a train belonging to Defendant, Erie Railroad Co., while walking along the railroad's right of way. Plaintiff claimed that he was lawfully on Defendant's premises as a licensee, and that he was struck by an open door on a rail car due to Defendant's negligence. Plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction and brought suit in federal court in the state of New York, where Defendant was incorporated. Defendant denied liability and insisted that the case be tried under the common law of Pennsylvania, which Defendant believed was more favorable because Plaintiff would likely be deemed a trespasser and the degree of Defendant's liability would be diminished. The district court found for Plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed, holding that it did not matter whether Pennsylvania law applied because there was no Pennsylvania statute governing the matter, and therefore the federal court was free to determine the applicable law. Defendant appeals.]

Issue:

Where federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, is a federal court free to determine the applicable law if there is no state statute governing the matter?

Decision:

No. The longstanding rule in Swift v. Tyson holds that the federal courts need not apply state common law in diversity cases, and that the federal courts could exercise independent judgment as to what the common law of the state is. This reasoning is based on a misinterpretation of the Rules Decision Act, the true purpose of which was to ensure that federal courts applied the common and statutory law of the state in diversity cases, except in matters in which federal law controlled. The doctrine of Swift v. Tyson has had negative political and social effects, weakening equal protection under the law by enabling litigants to choose between state and federal courts depending on which law appeared most favorable. State law was often disregarded due to the broad area of common law in which the federal courts chose to exercise independent judgment. The doctrine of Swift v. Tyson must be abandoned due to its unconstitutional consequences. There is no federal common law. Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. In this case, the appellate court erred in declining to decide the issue of liability based on state law. Reversed.

Basic Rule:

In diversity cases, except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state.

Concurrence:

The majority was correct in rejecting the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson; however, it was not necessary to declare the course that the federal courts pursued while following the doctrine unconstitutional. Disapproving of the Swift v. Tyson doctrine only requires the Court to hold that state common law should be held in the same regard by federal courts as the statutory law of the states.

Terms:

Rules Decision Act :

28 U.S.C. § 1652. Provides that, in civil actions, federal courts must apply the “law of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress“ provide otherwise.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us