Introduction
The research paper captures the case of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins. Tompkins, who was a Pennsylvania citizen had claimed that he was injured by a train belonging to the Erie Railroad company while he was walking alongside the rail in Hughes town in Pennsylvania State at a twilight (Vestal, 1962). He claimed that he was clear from the train’s way since he was walking on a footpath alongside the railway line and the pavement had been in use even before. Something that appeared to be a door protruding from the train hit and injured him. He moved on to claim that the accident occurred due to negligence in the train maintenance and operations since if the door had been repaired, the accident would not have happened.
On the other hand of the case was the Erie Railroad company representative who claimed that Tompkins was trespassing by the rail side as they claimed as stipulated in the Pennsylvania laws. Erie contended that the Pennsylvania law on the use of the railways' line defines an offense and a trespass for people who walk alongside the railways. The law classifies that if injuries occur in that case, the company is not liable for the compensation. The only law that exists is for crossing the rail whereby if an accident occurs; the person will be compensated. Tompkins could not agree with the statement as he claimed that no obvious part in the Pennsylvania law defines the direction that an accident occurs in the railway lines and thus, for this reason, Tompkins appealed to the general court with is the Federal courts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The case was categorized as a general law, and the trial Judge refused the fact that the law precluded recovery. The jury issued an amount of approximately 30,000 dollars as a verdict, and thus the judgment was affirmed by the court of appeal that was on the opinion that since the case was on the general category, then there was no need for considering the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. With the general cases, it is even possible to associate jury with negligence of the pedestrians who are using the rail-side walkways.
Rule and law
The rules and laws depend on several factors and among them is the jurisdiction. In this case, three choices prevailed over which the locality where the plaintiff could file his claim. First, he would file it in the state of Pennsylvania since that is where he lived. Second, he would have filed it in Erie's company headquarters which was in New York. The third option for filing the case was through the federal court where Tompkins filed his case. The reason why he did not file the case in Pennsylvania was that the ruling on trespassing would have gone against him and thus, he would have been the culprit. The defendant, on the other hand, wanted the case to be heard based on the Pennsylvania laws.
The jurisdiction diversity gives people an opportunity to file cases in the federal courts since the court has jurisdiction over all categories of the cases including the general cases. The laws are regarded as rules in trials at the common law in courts in the united states. The federal court ordered to listen to previous cases so as to set the grounds for listening to the Tompkins’s case. The first one to listen was the Swift v. Tyson which was ruled that the federal court’s jurisdiction on the diversity of the citizenship does not apply the unwritten law. Section 34 limited the court where the tribunals are recommended instead. The other case used as certiorari was the Mason v. United States where the federal court had an assumption that in the broad category of general law the power to declare laws. The analysis of the tenet wound up across the board after the choice of Black and White Taxicab Company. v. Darker and Yellow Taxicab Company. In this case, Brown and Yellow, which was a Kentucky enterprise, wanted that the Darker and Yellow company should have the selective benefit of requesting traveler and stuff transportation at the Bowling Green, Kentucky, railroad station; and that the Black and White, a contending Kentucky company, ought to be kept from meddling with that benefit. Realizing that such an agreement would be void under the customary law of Kentucky, it was masterminded that the Brown and Yellow reincorporate under the law of Tennessee and that the agreement with the railroad ought to be executed there (Vestal, 1962).
Analysis
There are several factors that determine whether the case is negligent or not. Among them are the duty, breaches, damages, and causation.
Duty
T he initial phase in examining a carelessness situation is to build up whether the litigant owed the offended party an obligation. There are two sorts of obligation that a respondent could owe the offended party. The first is the general "obligation of consideration". The obligation of consideration is just an obligation to behave like a sensible individual, acting under comparative conditions, would act. In any carelessness suit, we take a gander at the litigant's activities and attempt to decide if a sensible individual would have acted the manner in which the respondent acted had the sensible individual been in similar conditions that the respondent was in. In the event that the litigant's conduct coordinates the sensible man's conduct the respondent has satisfied his obligation of consideration. On the off chance that the respondent's activities fall underneath what a court decides the sensible man's activities would have been the litigant has ruptured his obligation. The second obligation is an "uncommon obligation" forced by rule or case law which may exist either notwithstanding, or instead of the customary obligation of consideration.
Breach
When you have decided the presence of an obligation, you should decide if the respondent has ruptured his obligation. A respondent can break his obligation both by acting in a specific way or by neglecting to act in a specific way. In other words, a respondent can rupture his obligation either by acting in a way that disregards the sensible man test or by not acting in a circumstance where he is legitimately required to act.
Damage
It should demonstrate that the offended party endure s hurt because of the litigant's rupture. In the event that an offended party does not endure hurt, he can not sue for carelessness. If it i s not too much trouble to note that, likewise with deliberate torts, there are a few conceivable resistances to a charge of negligence. As the last advance in your examination, you should experience these conceivable guards to check whether the litigant can utilize one of them to protect himself from risk.
Causation
At long last, w hen one has shown that the respondent owed an obligation to the offended party and that the litigant ruptured that obligation, they should demonstrate that the break was both the real and proximate reason for the offended party's mischief.
Conclusion
From the evidence and instances explained in the judgment process, the Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins case could be termed as a negligent case. The railway company had neglected the maintenance of their trains, and in the process, Tompkins was injured while he was walking along the railway line. On the case of Tompkins, it could be seen that he was negligent as evidenced by the Pennsylvania state rules of law.
Reference
Vestal, Allan. (1962). “Erie Railroad company v. Tompkins: a projection." Rev 48
