Sampson v. Channell
110 F.2d 754 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a diversity of citizenship case, a federal court must apply the conflict of laws rules of the state in which it sits. The federal court's determination of whether an issue is substantive or procedural for Erie purposes is governed by whether the issue is outcome-determinative, regardless of how the state court characterizes the rule.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Channell, was driving his car in Maine.
- Channell's wife was a passenger in his car.
- A car driven by the defendant's testator, Sampson, collided with Channell's car.
- The collision occurred in Maine, causing injuries to Channell.
Procedural Posture:
- Channell (plaintiff) brought a negligence action against Sampson's estate (defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, a federal trial court.
- Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.
- The trial court, applying Maine law, instructed the jury that the plaintiff had the burden of proving he was not contributorily negligent.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the defendant on the issue of contributory negligence.
- The district court entered judgment for the defendant.
- Channell (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a diversity of citizenship case, must a federal court apply the conflict of laws rules of the state in which it sits to determine which state's law governs an outcome-determinative issue like the burden of proof?
Opinions:
Majority - Magruder, Circuit Judge
Yes. A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the conflict of laws rules of the state in which it is located. The core policy of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins is to ensure that the outcome of litigation is not substantially affected by the 'fortuitous existence of diversity of citizenship.' The burden of proof is an outcome-determinative issue, as it can decide the case when evidence is balanced or unavailable. Therefore, for Erie purposes, it is a matter of substantive law that a federal court must derive from the state. The question then becomes which state's law to apply. This is a conflict of laws question, and to avoid reintroducing the 'ghost of Swift v. Tyson' by creating a separate federal common law of conflicts, the federal court must apply the conflict of laws rules of the forum state. Here, a Massachusetts state court would classify burden of proof as procedural and apply its own law (lex fori). The federal court in Massachusetts must do the same, meaning it should have applied the Massachusetts rule placing the burden of proving contributory negligence on the defendant.
Concurring - Wilson, Circuit Judge
Judge Wilson concurred in the result without a written opinion.
Dissenting - Peters, District Judge
Judge Peters dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark application of the Erie doctrine, extending its principles to the field of conflict of laws. It establishes that federal courts in diversity must act as another court of the state, applying not only the state's substantive law but also its choice-of-law rules. This principle, later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., prioritizes vertical uniformity (consistency between state and federal courts in the same state) over horizontal uniformity (consistency of outcome for a tort regardless of where suit is brought). The decision underscores that the substance-procedure distinction under Erie is a functional, policy-based analysis focused on whether a state rule is outcome-determinative, not on pre-existing labels.
