Erie Co v. Tompkins, No. 367

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRANDEIS
Citation58 S.Ct. 817,82 L.Ed. 1188,304 U.S. 64,114 A.L.R. 1487
Decision Date25 April 1938
Docket NumberNo. 367
PartiesERIE R. CO. v. TOMPKINS. *

304 U.S. 64
58 S.Ct. 817
82 L.Ed. 1188
ERIE R. CO.

v.

TOMPKINS.*

No. 367.
Argued Jan. 31, 1938.
Decided April 25, 1938.

Page 65

Messrs. Theodore Kiendl, Harold W. Bissell, and William C. Cannon, all of New York City, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 65-67 intentionally omitted]

Page 68

Messrs. Fred H. Rees, Alexander L. Strouse, and Bernard G. Nemeroff, all of New York City (Bernard Kaufman and William Walsh, both of New York City, and Aaron L. Danzig, of Jamaica, L.I., on the brief) for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from Page 68 intentionally omitted]

Page 69

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether the oft-challenged doctrine of Swift v. Tyson1 shall now be disapproved.

Tompkins, 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 that state. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation, or maintenance, of the train; that he was rightfully on the premises as licensee because on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks; and that he was struck by something which looked like a door projecting from one of the moving cars. To enforce that claim he brought an action in the federal court for Southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that state. It denied liability; and the case was tried by a jury.

Page 70

The Erie insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser. It contended, among other things, 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 its highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way—that is, a longitudinal pathway as distinguished from a crossing—are to be deemed trespassers; and that the railroad is not liable for injuries to undiscovered trespassers resulting from its negligence, unless it be wanton or willful. Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established by the decisions of the Pennsylvania courts; and contended that, since there was no statute of the state on the subject, the railroad's duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law.

The trial judge refused to rule that the applicable law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a verdict of $30,000; and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held (2 Cir., 90 F.2d 603, 604), that it was unnecessary to consider whether the law of Pennsylvania was as contended, because the question was one not of local, but of general, law, and that 'upon questions of general law the federal courts are free, in absence of a local statute, to exercise their independent judgment as to what the law is; and it is well settled that the question of the responsibility of a railroad for injuries caused by its servants is one of general law. * * * Where the public has made open and notorious use of a railroad right of way for a long period of time and without objection, the company owes to persons on such permissive pathway a duty of care in the operation of its trains. * * * It is likewise generally recognized law that a jury may find that negligence exists toward a pedestrian using a permissive path on the railroad right of way if he is hit by some object projecting from the side of the train.'

Page 71

The Erie had contended that application of the Pennsylvania rule was required, among other things, by section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 28 U.S.C. § 725, 28 U.S.C.A. § 725, which provides: 'The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'

Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, we granted certiorari. 302 U.S. 671, 58 S.Ct. 50, 82 L.Ed. —-.

First. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, 10 L.Ed. 865, held that federal courts exercising jurisdiction on the ground 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; and that, as there stated by Mr. Justice Story, 'the true interpretation of the 34th section limited its application to state laws, strictly local, that is to say, to the positive statutes of the state, and the construction thereof adopted by the local tribunals, and to rights and titles to things having a permanent locality, such as the rights and titles to real estate, and other matters immovable and intra-territorial in their nature and character. It never has been supposed by us, that the section did apply, or was designed to apply, to questions of a more general nature, not at all dependent upon local statutes or local usages of a fixed and permanent operation, as, for example, to the construction of ordinary contracts or other written instruments, and especially to questions of general commercial law, where the state tribunals are called upon to perform the like functions as ourselves, that is, to ascertain, upon general reasoning and legal analogies, what is the true exposition of the contract or

Page 72

instrument, or what is the just rule furnished by the principles of commercial law to govern the case.'

The Court in applying the rule of section 34 to equity cases, in Mason v. United States, 260 U.S. 545, 559, 43 S.Ct. 200, 204, 67 L.Ed. 396, said: 'The statute, however, is merely declarative of the rule which would exist in the absence of the statute.'2 The federal courts assumed, in the broad field of 'general law,' the power to declare rules of decision which Congress was confessedly without power to enact as statutes. Doubt was repeatedly expressed as to the correctness of the construction given section 34,3 and as to the soundness of the rule which it introduced.4 But it was the more recent research of a competent scholar, who examined the original document, which established that the construction given to it by the Court was erroneous; and that the purpose of the section was merely to make certain that, in all matters except those in which some federal law is controlling,

Page 73

the federal courts exercising jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases would apply as their rules of decision the law of the state, unwritten as well as written.5

Criticism of the doctrine became widespread after the decision of Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518, 48 S.Ct. 404, 72 L.Ed. 681, 57 A.L.R. 426.6 There, Brown &Yellow, a Kentucky corporation owned by Kentuckians, and the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, also a Kentucky corporation, wished that the former should have the exclusive privilege of soliciting passenger and baggage transportation at the Bowling Green, Ky., Railroad station; and that the Black & White, a competing Kentucky corporation, should be prevented from interfering with that privilege. Knowing that such a contract would be void under the common law of Kentucky, it was arranged that the Brown & Yellow reincorporate under the law of Tennessee, and that the contract with the railroad should be executed there. The suit was then brought by the Tennessee corporation in the federal court for Western Kentucky to enjoin competition by the Black & White; an injunction issued by the District Court

Page 74

was sustained by the Court of Appeals; and this Court, citing many decisions in which the doctrine of Swift & Tyson had been applied, affirmed the decree.

Second. Experience in applying the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson, had revealed its defects, political and social; and the benefits expected to flow from the rule did not accrue. Persistence of state courts in their own opinions on questions of common law prevented uniformity;7 and the impossibility of discovering a satisfactory line of demarcation between the province of general law and that of local law developed a new well of uncertainties.8

On the other hand, the mischievous results of the doctrine had become apparent. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction was conferred in order to prevent apprehended discrimination in state courts against those not citizens of the state. Swift v. Tyson introduced grave discrimination by noncitizens against citizens. It made rights enjoyed under the unwritten 'general law' vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state

Page 75

or in the federal court; and the privilege of selecting the court in which the right should be determined was conferred upon the noncitizen.9 Thus, the doctrine rendered impossible equal protection of the law. In attempting to promote uniformity of law throughout the United States, the doctrine had prevented uniformity in the administration of the law of the state.

The discrimination resulting became in practice far-reaching. This resulted in part from the broad province accorded to the so-called 'general law' as to which federal courts exercised an independent judgment.10 In addition to questions of purely commercial law, 'general law' was held to include the obligations under contracts entered into and to be performed within the state,11 the extent to which a carrier operating within a state may stipulate for exemption from liability for his own negligence or that of his employee;12 the liability for torts committed within the state upon persons resident or property located there, even where the question of lia-

Page...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18294 practice notes
  • McNeilab, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 82-3934.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 31, 1986
    ...policy construction arguments it advanced in its earlier summary judgment motion. 5 Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) as developed in Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941), N......
  • Moore v. It's All Good Auto Sales, Inc., No. 11–2758–STA–cgc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • October 1, 2012
    ...F.3d at 135. 73. Compl. ¶ 45. 74.Super Sulky, Inc. v. U.S. Trotting Ass'n, 174 F.3d 733, 741 (6th Cir.1999). 75.Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). 76.Ritter v. Custom Chemicides, Inc., 912 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tenn.1995). 77.Restatement (Second) of T......
  • Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, Civ. No. 93-2084(JBS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 23, 1994
    ...Dram Shop Liability Our jurisdiction in this case is based upon diversity of citizenship. Consequently, under Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), we must apply the substantive law of the State of New Jersey. Where the New Jersey Supreme Court has not ......
  • Howarth v. Rockingham Pub. Co., Inc., No. CIV. A. 96-0096-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • October 1, 1998
    ...al., 495 S.E.2d 482 (Va.1998). A Federal court, sitting in diversity, must apply substantive State law. See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 A.H. involved the identical issue of whether the same newspaper publisher, Rockingham, Page 966 and the same ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18309 cases
  • McNeilab, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 82-3934.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 31, 1986
    ...policy construction arguments it advanced in its earlier summary judgment motion. 5 Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) as developed in Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941), N......
  • Moore v. It's All Good Auto Sales, Inc., No. 11–2758–STA–cgc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • October 1, 2012
    ...F.3d at 135. 73. Compl. ¶ 45. 74.Super Sulky, Inc. v. U.S. Trotting Ass'n, 174 F.3d 733, 741 (6th Cir.1999). 75.Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). 76.Ritter v. Custom Chemicides, Inc., 912 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tenn.1995). 77.Restatement (Second) of T......
  • Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, Civ. No. 93-2084(JBS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 23, 1994
    ...Dram Shop Liability Our jurisdiction in this case is based upon diversity of citizenship. Consequently, under Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), we must apply the substantive law of the State of New Jersey. Where the New Jersey Supreme Court has not ......
  • Howarth v. Rockingham Pub. Co., Inc., No. CIV. A. 96-0096-H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Virginia)
    • October 1, 1998
    ...al., 495 S.E.2d 482 (Va.1998). A Federal court, sitting in diversity, must apply substantive State law. See Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 A.H. involved the identical issue of whether the same newspaper publisher, Rockingham, Page 966 and the same ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
11 books & journal articles
  • Combating Internet Trolls: The Right of Publicity and Section 230
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 13-1, September 2020
    • September 9, 2020
    ...20. 540 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.N.H. 2008). 21. Id. at 291–92. 22. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652A–652E (Am. Law Inst. 1977). 23. 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 24. 313 U.S. 487 (1941). 25. 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 26. Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.010. 27. Id. § 63.60.050. 28. See, e.g. , Lewis v. Physicians......
  • STARE DECISIS AND INTERSYSTEMIC ADJUDICATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation]; Foster, supra note 2. (4) See infra Sections I.B-C and II.A-B. (5) Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pel.) 1, 18 (1842), under which federal courts were supposed to apply "federal general comm......
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review Nbr. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...part of the “general law” so famously tapped in Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 18 (1842), and skewered in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). See Collins, supra note 12, at 271–90; William A. Fletcher, General Common Law and Section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789: The Ex......
  • FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...“whether relevant federal common-law standards could have survived [Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)]). 173. See Erie, 304 U.S. at 64 (holding that in federal courts, except in matters governed by the U.S. Constitution or acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT