Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Supreme Court of the United States · 1938 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawErie doctrinefederal common lawchoice of lawRules of Decision ActErie doctrineSwift v. Tyson

Facts

Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured in Pennsylvania by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad while walking along a commonly used footpath beside the railroad's tracks. He claimed the railroad was negligent in operation or maintenance and that he was struck by something like a projecting door from a moving car. Erie, a New York corporation, argued that Pennsylvania law governed and that under Pennsylvania decisions a person using such a longitudinal pathway was a trespasser to whom the railroad owed only a duty to refrain from wanton or wilful injury. Tompkins argued there was no controlling Pennsylvania rule and that, absent a state statute, the federal court could determine the railroad's duty as a matter of general law.

Issue

In a diversity case, may a federal court disregard state common law as declared by the state's highest court on the ground that the matter is one of general law? More specifically, should Swift v. Tyson's doctrine permitting federal courts to exercise independent judgment on general common-law questions be disapproved?

Rule

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. It is immaterial whether that state law is declared by statute or by the state's highest court, and there is no federal general common law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez, a citizen of Arizona, sued Lakefront Delivery Group, a Wisconsin corporation, in federal court in Milwaukee after she was injured at a loading dock in Wisconsin. Wisconsin's highest court has adopted a common-law rule that limits the duty owed to certain uninvited entrants, but no Wisconsin statute addresses the issue.

How should the federal court determine the defendant's duty?

Explanation. The majority held that, except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or Acts of Congress, the law to be applied is the law of the State. It is immaterial whether that law is stated in a statute or in the decisions of the state's highest court. Thus a federal court sitting in diversity may not substitute a federal general common-law rule for Wisconsin common law.