Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

Citation. 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 118 (1938)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 118 (1938)

Brief Fact Summary.

A citizen of Pennsylvania (Plaintiff) sued a citizen of New York (Defendant) in New York federal court for injuries sustained from a train in Pennsylvania. Defendant argued it was not liable for Plaintiff’s injuries based on Pennsylvania common law.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Applicable state statutory and common law is applied to a case in federal court under diversity jurisdiction unless the issue of the case falls under the U.S. Constitution or an act of Congress.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Third. 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.

View Full Point of Law

Tompkins (Plaintiff), a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured in Pennsylvania by a train while walking on the pathway next to the railroad track. Plaintiff sued the owner of the train, Erie Railroad Co. (Defendant), a citizen of New York, in the federal court for Southern New York under diversity jurisdiction. Defendant argued it was not liable for Plaintiff’s injuries based on Pennsylvania common law regarding liability for torts.

Issue.

Tompkins (Plaintiff), a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured in Pennsylvania by a train while walking on the pathway next to the railroad track. Plaintiff sued the owner of the train, Erie Railroad Co. (Defendant), a citizen of New York, in the federal court for Southern New York under diversity jurisdiction. Defendant argued it was not liable for Plaintiff’s injuries based on Pennsylvania common law regarding liability for torts.

Held.

Yes, the law of the state should be applied in these cases. The case was reversed and remanded.

Dissent.

Justice Butler

Butler argues that the Court’s decision inadvertently strikes down Section 34 as unconstitutional and creates nonuniformity among federal case decisions involving state common law.

Concurrence.

Justice Reed

Reed agrees that the Swift v. Tyson should be overturned, but disagrees that it should be overturned as unconstitutional.

Discussion.

The Court overturned Swift v. Tyson as unconstitutional because no federal general common law exists and the case gave federal judges too much discretion in the choice of law, encroaching on legitimate state power.