Brief of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Statement of the Case

Tompkins sued the Erie Railroad Company in federal court in New York for personal injury damages suffered while he was walking on a footpath that ran for a short distance alongside the railroad's tracks in Hughestown, Pennsylvania.  Tompkins claimed that he was struck by a door protruding from one of the cars on the train and that the accident was caused by the negligence of the railroad.  Erie answered that Tompkins was an undiscovered trespasser under Pennsylvania law and that as such, Tompkins was owed a limited duty not to be injured by the railroad's willful or wanton negligence.

Tompkins sought to enforce his claim in federal court in New York and contended that the railroad's liability should be determined by general law rather than Pennsylvania law.  Erie claimed that Pennsylvania law insulated it from liability because Tompkins was a trespasser and there was no evidence that the railroad breached its limited duty not to injure him through "willful or wanton" conduct.

At the close of the evidence, the judge refused to rule for Erie and included a jury instruction concerning the railroad's duty of ordinary care under general law.  The jury rendered a $30,000 verdict for the plaintiff, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that under the Rules of Decision Act, the federal court did not have to apply Pennsylvania law but was free to apply general law principles.  Erie brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury under "general law" principles based on the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson.

Holding

Yes, the charge to the jury was erroneous.  For policy reasons, the federal courts must apply the decisional law (case law) of the states in diversity cases.  The term "law" includes Pennsylvania common law.  Thus, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Pennsylvania law to Tompkins and his Pennsylvania-based tort claim.

Reasoning

Because Swift v. Tyson unfairly allowed the result of litigation conducted in state court under state common law to differ materially if the suit were litigated under general law principles in federal court, it allowed "grave discrimination" and encouraged "forum shopping," which had grown up in response to the Swift rule.  Instead of promoting uniformity, the general law approach produced the opposite.  Except as provided by the Constitution and Acts of Congress, state law applies.  There is no federal general common law because no clause in the Constitution confers such a power on federal courts.

Read the case | To the top |  Go to class!