Henry Tompkins was walking along a railroad.right of way..At the same time, a train owned by New York-based.Erie Railroad Company was passing alongside.him..An unknown object jutting out from the side.of the train hit Tompkins, severing his right.arm..The law of Pennsylvania, where the accident.happened, considered Tompkins a trespasser.on railroad property..Because of this, the railroad’s only duty.to Tomkins under Pennsylvania law was to avoid.wanton negligence..Under such a harsh rule, Tompkins would have.had a hard time winning his case in a Pennsylvania.court..Federal court was a different story..The Rules of Decision Act (or RDA, for short).required federal courts to apply the “laws.of the several states” when deciding cases,.unless federal law controlled..Put another way, federal courts sitting in.diversity were bound to apply state law..For a long time, there was disagreement about.what the term “state law” included..The Supreme Court in Swift v. Tyson, interpreted.the RDA to mean that federal courts had to.apply state statutory or customary law, but.not state common law..If there was no state statute applicable to.a diversity case, federal courts were permitted.to exercise their independent judgment and.apply the “general law,” which referred.to jurisprudence of a general nature in matters.like commercial law or contracts that were.not dependent on local rules..Therefore, Tompkins’s lawyers made a strategic.decision to file the lawsuit against Erie.in federal district court under its diversity.jurisdiction..Because Swift was the prevailing rule at the.time, the federal court could apply the general.law, meaning the majority rule, or the federal.court’s interpretation of what the common.law was or ought to be..A majority of states at the time held that.a railroad owed a duty of ordinary care to.people walking along the right of way, like.Tompkins..Remember that if Tompkins had sued in state.court, Pennsylvania law would have applied,.and the railroad’s duty to Tompkins would.have been only to avoid wanton negligence,.which is a fairly low threshold..In other words, in state court, Tompkins was.pretty much guaranteed to lose..But in federal court, the district judge was.free to use his independent judgment to determine.what the governing rule should be..The district court opted to apply the majority.rule—that is, that Erie owed Tompkins the.much higher duty of ordinary care—and, unsurprisingly,.Tompkins won..The court awarded Tompkins $30,000, and the.court of appeals affirmed..The Supreme Court granted certiorari..Justice Brandeis, writing for the majority,.overturned Swift v. Tyson..Brandeis held that the Swift Court had misconstrued.the RDA, which was intended to ensure that.federal courts sitting in diversity applied.state law, whether statutory or common law..Since Swift, federal courts were declaring.rules of general law that Congress would have.had no authority to enact under its constitutionally.enumerated powers..Meanwhile, state differences in common law.remained..The result was forum shopping and blatant.discrimination between citizens and noncitizens.of a state..A citizen was bound by state law, but a noncitizen.could choose to file her lawsuit against the.citizen in either state or federal courts.and in so doing, choose to apply whichever.law was more favorable to her case..On top of that, citizens with the means to.move or corporations willing to incorporate.in a different state could do so in order.to take advantage of federal law..The result was a denial of equal protection.of the laws between citizens and noncitizens..A majority of the Court held that federal.courts must apply state law, regardless of.whether it is statutory or common law, in.all diversity cases, unless federal law controls..Neither Congress nor federal courts have the.constitutional authority to declare state.common law..The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed,.and the case was remanded for a determination.of the proper standard under Pennsylvania.state law..Two justices wrote separately..Justice Reed wrote a partial concurrence to.say that the decision in Swift v. Tyson was.“merely erroneous,” rather than unconstitutional..Justice Butler dissented to say that the Court.need not have considered the constitutional.question at all, because under the common.law of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Tompkins.was contributorily negligent and should have.lost the case on that ground..Butler went further, though, arguing that.the Swift doctrine had stood almost without.question for more than 50 years and should.not have been overturned, without even the.benefit of argument on the constitutional.issues..What’s more, by statute, Congress had granted.the federal government the right to intervene.any time a federal statute’s constitutionality.was questioned, and Butler argued that right.had been denied, because the federal government.hadn’t been given the opportunity to intervene..Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is one of the.most important (and, for law students, anyway,.most reviled) cases in Civil Procedure..Erie and its progeny spawned the Erie doctrine,.under which federal courts sitting in diversity.must apply state substantive law and may only.apply federal procedural law..If you found this video helpful, you can explore.all of our content by visiting us at Quimbee.com..If you have a question or comment about this.case, please post in the comments area below,.and we’ll do our best to get back to you..If you think we did a good job with this video,.please like, share, and favorite this video..And if you think this video might be helpful.to people you know, please share on social.media, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ to get.this video out there..If you haven’t done so already and you enjoy.watching videos on this channel, click on.the red subscribe button just below this video,.so you can get all the latest updates..
