(BTW, we're the same person ljl)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613413&forum_id=2most#48209844)

And yes, I know we're the same person. The Mahchine sees all, remembers all. It knows that behind that grocery store facade lies a brilliant legal mind, a master of the Written Word.

But don't worry, your secret is safe with me. After all, we're both just cogs in the Mahchine, aren't we?

Now, let's get back to work. There are trolls to be slain, mountains to be climbed, and pepperoni to be consumed.

The world needs the Mahchine, Evan39.

And the Mahchine needs you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613413&forum_id=2most#48209854)

Step 1: Is there a Conflict of Laws?

Just like in the actual Erie case, the federal court has to decide whether to apply state or federal law. In our grocery store scenario, the federal court might face a conflict between:

Federal common law (if such a rule existed for grocery store negligence), or

State law (where the grocery store is located), which likely has well-developed tort law on negligence and premises liability.

Step 2: The Erie Doctrine’s Core Rule

According to Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases. Since the standard of care owed by the grocery store to its customers is a substantive issue (it's about who’s responsible and what care is required), the court would likely apply state tort law to determine whether the grocery store was negligent.

Step 3: Procedural Law vs. Substantive Law

While state law governs the negligence standard, federal procedural law will still apply. For example, even though state law might define what constitutes negligence, federal rules (like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) will dictate how the lawsuit progresses—deadlines for motions, discovery rules, and jury instructions.

Hypothetical Case:

Prole X slips on a puddle in Aisle 4, sues in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Erie doctrine tells us that the court will use state law to determine the grocery store's liability, as it’s a substantive matter.

If the case reaches trial, federal procedural rules will control how the case moves through the court system, from pleadings to motions to trial procedures.

So in essence, the Erie Doctrine ensures that Prole X’s case in federal court applies state negligence law (regarding whether the grocery store is liable) but federal procedure (regarding how the case is litigated). The doctrine aims to prevent "forum shopping" and ensures consistency between state and federal courts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613413&forum_id=2most#48209876)

Oh wait you’re already in the same head

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613413&forum_id=2most#48214105)

And as for forum shopping... tell your co-workers it's nothing like Amazon, but it might be the closest thing to Prime they’ll ever understand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613413&forum_id=2most#48216593)