Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
48 هزار بار بازدید -
9 سال پیش
-
Get more case briefs explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins | 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
Henry Tompkins was walking along a railroad right of way. At the same time, a train owned by New York-based Erie Railroad Company was passing alongside him. An unknown object jutting out from the side of the train hit Tompkins, severing his right arm.
The law of Pennsylvania, where the accident happened, considered Tompkins a trespasser on railroad property. Because of this, the railroad’s only duty to Tomkins under Pennsylvania law was to avoid wanton negligence. Under such a harsh rule, Tompkins would have had a hard time winning his case in a Pennsylvania court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here https://www.quimbee.com/cases/erie-ra...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/erie-ra...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► Facebook: quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► Twitter: quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins | 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
Henry Tompkins was walking along a railroad right of way. At the same time, a train owned by New York-based Erie Railroad Company was passing alongside him. An unknown object jutting out from the side of the train hit Tompkins, severing his right arm.
The law of Pennsylvania, where the accident happened, considered Tompkins a trespasser on railroad property. Because of this, the railroad’s only duty to Tomkins under Pennsylvania law was to avoid wanton negligence. Under such a harsh rule, Tompkins would have had a hard time winning his case in a Pennsylvania court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here https://www.quimbee.com/cases/erie-ra...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/erie-ra...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► Facebook: quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► Twitter: quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
9 سال پیش
در تاریخ 1394/12/12 منتشر شده
است.
48,084
بـار بازدید شده