Fact Pattern 2-1
Yoshi, a Japanese citizen working in Atlanta for his Tokyo firm, decided to rent an airplane and fly himself to the Annual Catfish and Zydeco festival in Thibodaux, Louisiana. He rented a small plane to fly there. Over Alabama, thunderstorms formed. Because Yoshi was not trained to fly by instruments, he decided to land at the next airport.
As he searched for a runway, Yoshi heard a loud clank followed by silence as the engine died. He tried to land in a field but crashed. While recovering in a rehabilitation center in California, Yoshi filed suit there against the Atlanta Airport and the owners of the airplane, alleging that they were negligent in their maintenance.
-Refer to Fact Pattern 2-1. Assume the defendants have the case removed from the state court in California to a federal court. Under Erie v. Tompkins what law will the federal court be most likely to apply in deciding the dispute?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Under Erie v. Tompkins, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which it is located, including its statutory and common law. In this case, since the suit was originally filed in California and the defendants removed it to federal court, the federal court would apply the substantive law of California. However, since the case involves a contract that was formed in Georgia, the court would likely apply the state law of Georgia where Yoshi contracted to rent the airplane.

Fact Pattern 2-1 Yoshi, a Japanese Citizen Working in Atlanta for His Tokyo