ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS

A 1938 landmark decision by the Supreme
Court, Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188, that held that
in an action in a federal court, except as to mat-
ters governed by the U.S. Constitution and acts
of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is
the law of the state in which the federal court is
situated.
Harry J. Tompkins was walking on a foot-
path alongside railroad tracks on land owned by
the Erie Railroad Company when he was struck
and injured by a passing train. He claimed that
his injuries resulted from the NEGLIGENCE of the
railroad in operating the train.
Tompkins wanted to sue the railroad and
recover monetary damages for his injuries. He
202 EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Editionwas a citizen of Pennsylvania, and the Erie Rail-
road Company was a New York corporation. He
instituted an action in federal court, which was
empowered, by virtue of its diversity jurisdic-
tion, to hear the case because the plaintiff and
the defendant were citizens of different states.
The issue before the court was what law to
apply in deciding the case. The court would have
applied a federal statute to decide whether
Tompkins was entitled to damages, but none
existed. The court would have applied a state
statute since there was no federal statute, but
Pennsylvania did not have one.
The highest court of Pennsylvania had
established a rule to be followed in state courts
whenever a case like this occurred. The Pennsyl-
vania rule was that people who use pathways
along railroad right-of-ways, not railroad cross-
ings, are trespassers to whom railroads were not
to be held liable unless the trespassers were
intentionally injured by the reckless and wanton
acts of the railroads.
The trial judge refused to apply the Pennsyl-
vania rule. He found that SWIFT V. TYSON, 41
U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842), which held
that there was a body of federal COMMON LAW to
be applied in such cases, gave federal judges the
right to ignore state rules that were not enacted
as statutes by their state legislatures.He held that
it was more important for all federal courts to
follow a uniform rule, rather than for each fed-
eral court to apply local state rules when there
was no statute to resolve the case. He allowed a
jury to decide whether the railroad company
was negligent, and the jury returned a verdict of
$30,000 for Tompkins.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision
and struck down the rule that allowed federal
judges to ignore state court decisions in diversity
cases. Although this rule had been followed since
SWIFT V. TYSON was decided in 1842, the
Supreme Court ruled that it was inequitable.
According to the old rule, Tompkins could
obtain monetary damages if he sued in federal
court, but not if he initiated his lawsuit a few
blocks away in the Pennsylvania state court. If
the plaintiff and defendant were citizens of dif-
ferent states, the plaintiff could take advantage of
the right to sue in federal court. There the plain-
tiff might win, even if he or she had been tres-
passing on railroad property. If the plaintiff and
defendant were both citizens of Pennsylvania,
the plaintiff could not sue in federal court. Penn-
sylvania courts would all be bound to follow the
rule that prevented recoveries for those who used
paths alongside railroad tracks. The Supreme
Court held that it was unjust for the plaintiff ’s
chances of winning to depend on the fact that
the railroad was a Pennsylvania corporation.
The new rule of ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMP-
KINS provided that federal courts do not have
the power to formulate their own RULES OF LAW.
The federal courts must apply appropriate fed-
eral statutes in diversity cases.When there is no
federal law to resolve the question in a lawsuit,
they must follow the law of the state that is
involved. That includes state statutes and con-
trolling decisions made by the highest court of
that state.
As a result of this case, the decisions of federal
courts are truly uniform only when a question of
federal law is involved. Otherwise, the states are
free to develop their own law and have it applied
to state questions that come into federal court