Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
United States Supreme Court
304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
While walking along the railroad tracks, Harry Tompkins (plaintiff), a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured by a train owned by Erie Railroad Co. (Erie) (defendant). Tompkins sued Erie, a New York company, for negligence in New York federal court. At trial, Erie argued that Tompkins was a trespasser and, under Pennsylvania state law, the company was not liable unless its conduct was wantonly negligent. Tompkins argued that federal general law should apply and determine Erie’s duty and liability. The trial judge applied the rule from Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842), holding that federal courts were bound to apply only state statutory and customary law, not state common law. Thus, the trial court applied the general law. Because the majority rule was that railroad companies owed a duty of ordinary care to travelers like Tompkins, the district court granted recovery for Tompkins. The circuit court affirmed judgment for Tompkins, claiming that federal courts could use their discretion on matters of general law. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brandeis, J.)
Concurrence (Reed, J.)
Dissent (Butler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
