{"id":9921,"date":"2017-11-29T00:55:51","date_gmt":"2017-11-29T00:55:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9921"},"modified":"2017-11-29T02:16:31","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T02:16:31","slug":"erie-railroad-co-v-tompkins-1938","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9921","title":{"rendered":"Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) – In interpreting the common law, the federal court is bound by declaration of the highest state court on the state law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Facts:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in the state.\u00a0 He claimed that the act occurred through negligence in the operation or maintenance of the train; that he\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>was rightfully on the premises because he was on a commonly used footpath that ran for a short distance alongside the tracks; and that he was struck by something that looked like a door projecting from one of the moving cars.\u00a0 He brought an action in the federal court for southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that state.\u00a0 Erie insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser.\u00a0 It contended that its duty to Tompkins and hence its liability, should be determined in accordance with the Pennsylvania law: that under the law of Pennsylvania, as declared by the highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way are to be deemed trespassers; and that the railroad is not liable.\u00a0 Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established, and contended that since there was no statute of the state on the subject, the railroad\u2019s duty and liability were to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law.<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Question:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Is the federal court bound by the alleged rule of Pennsylvania\u2019s common law as declared by the highest court of that state or free to exercise an independent judgment as to what the common law of the state is or should be?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Decision:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In interpreting the common law, the federal court is bound by declaration of the highest state court on the state law.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Reasons:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0J. Brandeis<\/em> (6-2).\u00a0 Except in matters governed by the federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the substantive law<\/a> to be applied in any case is the law of the state.\u00a0 And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>of federal concern.\u00a0 There is no federal general common law.\u00a0 Congress has no power to declare substitute rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or \u201cgeneral,” be they commercial law or part of\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>the law of torts.\u00a0 No clause of the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.\u00a0 So far as a state enforces common law, it does so on the basis of its own authority without regard to what it may have been in England or any where else.\u00a0 The authority and only authority is the state, and if that be so, the voice adopted by the state as its own should utter the last word.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Note:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Erie Railroad overruled Swift v. Tyson<\/em> (I842), which said there was a federal common law.\u00a0 This problem so plagued the federal courts for more\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>than one hundred years that the Supreme Court grasped the Erie case to change the law.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Citation:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins<\/em>, 304 U.S. 64; 58 S. Ct. 817; 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Rowman & Littlefield\u2019s\u00a0Essential Supreme Court Decisions\u00a016th Edition\u00a0<\/em><\/a>by\u00a0John R. Vile<\/a>.\u00a0 p 114.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

******************************************<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to<\/span> Supreme Court Rulings<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

About the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

All Federal Courts<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Intro to Law<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0PayPal<\/a>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n