Erie RR co v Tompkins
Brandeis
Question: whether the oft-challenged doctrine of Swift v Tyson shall now be disapproved.
Facts: Tompkins, a citizen of PA, was injured when walking along a right of way. Thompson claimed it was Erie’s negligence that caused his injuries sustained from a piece of the train protruding out into the right of way striking him and causing injury. He contends he was rightfully on the well-traveled path. Erie contends they owed no duty to Tompkins because e was a trespasser. Tompkins contends since there were no state statutes on the subject, their duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law.
Tompkins wanted it in NY b/c its lack of state statutes would defer to the Federal Common Law which holds RR’s culpable while PA state law would have deemed him trespassing with no remedy.
Procedure: Tompkins brought suit in the federal court for southern New York (how did he get here? Defendant resides in New York), which had jurisdiction because company of that state. Appealed to circuit Court of Appeals, who affirmed the $30,000 judgment. The Supreme Court over-turned the verdict.
Pre-existing Rules: The Swift Doctrine held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship need not, in matters of general jurisprudence, apply the unwritten law of the state as declared by its highest court; that they are free to exercise an independent judgment as to what the common law of the state is – or should be
Swift Doctrine: What motivated judges to interpret/ make federal general law? 1. Judges believed they knew the best, 2. If there was uniform general Federal Common law it would even out the many divergent state laws
Reasoning:
Problems with Swift
1. This was erroneous construction, and the real purpose was for federal law to apply in those areas where it is controlling, and absence of this the federal courts should apply the states rules as their rules of decision of the law both written and unwritten.
2. The impossibility of establishing a satisfactory demarcation line between the province of general law and that of local law created uncertainty. Thus, stifling any attempts to create uniformity and equal protection. (Opposite of the very reasoning for the Swift Doctrine to create uniformity with General Federal Common Law)
3. Except in matters governed by the fed. Constitution or Acts of Congress, the laws to be applied in any case is the law of the state. There is no Federal General Law and no clause in the constitution that gives power to the federal cts. To declare substantive rules of common-law applicable in a state.
Holding: Erie take home: The court held that there was no general federal common law upon which federal courts could draw for substantive decisions and mandated that state law apply in diversity suits. Procedural decisions are still governed by Federal Law. (Over-ruled the swift doctrine, no more fed cts creating common law, its now unconstitutional, must look to states common-law)
Brandeis used this case to flip the Swift doctrine, which had 100 years of history, was a surprising/shocking decision, why was Brandeis uncomfortable with the Swift Doctrine because of forum shopping and equitable administration of laws.
Erie Rule: discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.
Erie Test (outcome-determination test)
Brandeis
Question: whether the oft-challenged doctrine of Swift v Tyson shall now be disapproved.
Facts: Tompkins, a citizen of PA, was injured when walking along a right of way. Thompson claimed it was Erie’s negligence that caused his injuries sustained from a piece of the train protruding out into the right of way striking him and causing injury. He contends he was rightfully on the well-traveled path. Erie contends they owed no duty to Tompkins because e was a trespasser. Tompkins contends since there were no state statutes on the subject, their duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law.
Tompkins wanted it in NY b/c its lack of state statutes would defer to the Federal Common Law which holds RR’s culpable while PA state law would have deemed him trespassing with no remedy.
Procedure: Tompkins brought suit in the federal court for southern New York (how did he get here? Defendant resides in New York), which had jurisdiction because company of that state. Appealed to circuit Court of Appeals, who affirmed the $30,000 judgment. The Supreme Court over-turned the verdict.
Pre-existing Rules: The Swift Doctrine held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the grounds of diversity of citizenship need not, in matters of general jurisprudence, apply the unwritten law of the state as declared by its highest court; that they are free to exercise an independent judgment as to what the common law of the state is – or should be
Swift Doctrine: What motivated judges to interpret/ make federal general law? 1. Judges believed they knew the best, 2. If there was uniform general Federal Common law it would even out the many divergent state laws
Reasoning:
Problems with Swift
1. This was erroneous construction, and the real purpose was for federal law to apply in those areas where it is controlling, and absence of this the federal courts should apply the states rules as their rules of decision of the law both written and unwritten.
2. The impossibility of establishing a satisfactory demarcation line between the province of general law and that of local law created uncertainty. Thus, stifling any attempts to create uniformity and equal protection. (Opposite of the very reasoning for the Swift Doctrine to create uniformity with General Federal Common Law)
3. Except in matters governed by the fed. Constitution or Acts of Congress, the laws to be applied in any case is the law of the state. There is no Federal General Law and no clause in the constitution that gives power to the federal cts. To declare substantive rules of common-law applicable in a state.
Holding: Erie take home: The court held that there was no general federal common law upon which federal courts could draw for substantive decisions and mandated that state law apply in diversity suits. Procedural decisions are still governed by Federal Law. (Over-ruled the swift doctrine, no more fed cts creating common law, its now unconstitutional, must look to states common-law)
Brandeis used this case to flip the Swift doctrine, which had 100 years of history, was a surprising/shocking decision, why was Brandeis uncomfortable with the Swift Doctrine because of forum shopping and equitable administration of laws.
Erie Rule: discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws.
Erie Test (outcome-determination test)