(I) THE ERIE DOCTRINE AND RELATED PROBLEMS Erie Railroad v.

Tompkins FACTS: was hit by a train while walking along the tracks ofs rr. sued the rr in a fed dst court based on diversity, claiming that the rr had acted negligentyly by leaving the door to one of the cars oen. Accident happened in PA. -Under PA law, could recover only by showing wanton negligence because he would be a trespasser on the rrs right of way. however argued that FEDEAL court should apply the genera or federal common law rule, which required the railroad to act with ordinary care. HOLD: Lower court was to apply the wanton PA standard. BYRD v Blue Ridge FACTS: hurd in SC connecting power lines in course of job for the (sub K) - resident of NC and brought diverisyt suit against -SC law if is employer would limit Byrds recover to workers comp. PH: for . Ct AP reversed. ISSUE: Under erie must state law be used in determing rights, regardless of conflict with federal law? HOLD: NO -Under erie Fed courts sitting in diversity must respect the definitions of rights created by state law -BU, state law cannot alter the essential function of the jury 7th Ammendment. -S.C state law was used to deicide form and more of enforcing immunity. *It did not inlove any essential determination of state rights* -Erie can reach mode and form IF= no affirmative countervailing considerations. BYRD BALANCING TEST [1] Is the stae rule bound up with rights and obligations? (this is a substantive question) *In erie, the state rule had 100% to do with the rights and obligations -IF YES=State Rule -IF NO=Go to second question [2] Will applying the state rule determine the outcome of the case? (York outcome determinative test) -IF OUTCOME DETERMINITIVE=Go to third question [3] Are there countervailing considerations? (A)Federal Interests i) Cost prohibitive ii) 7th amendment (B) States Interests i) Efficiency ii) Could it be outcome determinitive

Hanna v. Plumer FACTS: (OH) filed in district court of MA. Damages sought were over $10K. -Car crash in SC caused by negligence of . -Serivice given pursuant to FRCP 4(d)(1) BUT not acceptable service under MA law. PH: District Court granted summary judgment for . -Court of appeals affirmed -SCOUTUS reversed FRCP should be the rule. ISSUE: Should issue of service brought in Fed Ct sitting in diversity be ruled by state or fed law? HOLD: To detrermine the court looks to the YORK Outcome determinate test (1) Discourage forum shopping (2) Avoid inequitable administration of laws. REASON: York tells us that choices between ST/FD laws are to be made NOT by application of automatic litmust paper BUT rather by reference to the policies underlying erie. - did not present a situation here where application of state law would bar recovery 100% -Rather state rule would result in changing the manner of service. -Important to remember that this case would have been heard and brought correctly if the knew which rule to follow. -This case was NOT an issue of suit being barred 100% if brought in one court instead of others. Gasperini v Center For Humanities FACTS: photojournalist who agreed to sell original pics to for use in educational film and agreed to return them. -NY LAW: Appeals court is empowered to review the size of the jury verdicts & to order new trials where the verdicts awarded deviate materially from what would be a reasonable compensation. -FED LAW: The right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried bya jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the unided states of common law. PH: filed in US DC 7th Dist sitting in diversity. conceded liability for loss of pics Issue of damages tried before a jury awareded $450,000 moved for new trial pursuant to FRCP 59 Denied s motion Ct App. Vacated jury verdict. ISSUE: Whether Fed cts can give effect to the substantive thrust of the stae laws review standard without untoward alteration of the federal laws for trial and decision making.

TEST: Whether NYs law is outcome determinative Would application of the Ny standard have such an effect upon the fortunes of one or both of the parties that failure to apply for that standard would unfairly discriminate against citizens of the forum state AND would it case forum shopping?