Славин Максим : другие произведения.

Erie Railroad Co v. Tompkins (1938)

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    Очень давно написанный сценарий 10 минутной сценки для университетской кафедры английского языка в День американской культуры. Выкладываю, как дань теплым воспоминаниям.

"Erie" Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, case (1938)

Scenario

  
   (District jury court Judge is entering the stage. Everybody's standing up. He is taking his seat and opens the folder with case)
  
   Judge: Today we investigate the Tompkins v. "Erie" Railroad Co. case at the federal District jury court. The word is given to plaintiff's side.
  
   Tompkins's lawyer: (addressing the Judge) Thank you, Your Honor! (now the court and the jury) Today we investigate how a cold-blooded denial to admit the guilt and obvious lack of responsibility cost a severe pain and permanent injury to a good father, respected worker and law-abiding citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania - Mr. Harry Tompkins. (gently pointing at plaintiff, sarcastic expression on the face of Erie representative)
   Let me introduce you to the plot of the case. My client was on the way home in the car of his friend's when he decided to walk the rest of the way to his home on the fresh air through the shortest path - alongside railroad tracks. (dramatic pause) Little he knew that his innocent promenade would end in most dramatic way. About 2:30 in the night a freight train was passing. The narrow path where my client was on the way home was in short distance from the railroad. The dark time and lack of electric light provided the open door of one of the moving cars unseen and thus my client could not anticipate the danger and act. (dramatic pause) The said door struck Mr. Tompkins and knocked him under the wheels of the rain. Luckily only his right arm took the damage. (pause and now with determination and loud voice) Your Honor, respected jury, my client sues "Erie" Railroad Co. for an `ordinary negligence' of the railroad and demands justice in the form of monetary damages for his loss...that's all he has left to do. (taking her seat) Thank you, Your Honor!
  
   Tompkins: You must arrest the whole company, Your Honor, look what they have done with my hand (demonstrates his damaged hand, the lawyer is trying to calm him down)
  
   "Erie" worker: (stands up) You shouldn't have even been there at that time! Your Honor, who knows, maybe he put his arm under the wheels intentionally? (his lawyer is trying to calm him down)
  
   Judge: Order in the court room! (knocks once) You are going to debate afterwards.
  
   "Erie" Representative: My client is sorry, Your Honor!
  
   Judge: Now, is there going to be respondent's remark?
  
   Erie representative: Yes, Your Honor! (pause) First of all, "Erie" Railroad Co. offers its sincere condolences to Mr. Tompkins for what happened to him. It is natural that anybody under such circumstances would want justice, would want an adequate compensation. Even I. (pause) However, as every law-abiding citizen of our country, I respect the letter of the Law. And according to which, I would like to stress on the letter of Article 34 of the Rules of Decision Act which states that the laws of a state furnish the rules of decision for a federal court of that state. Thus, according to the common law of the State of Pennsylvania, the claimant has to show `wanton or willful negligence' in order to demand damages, and should he fail to do so (determined pause and harsh continuation) - it is he to be considered a trespasser since he had no right to walk alongside railroad tracks as it is "Erie" Railroad Co.'s property.
  
   Tompkins: But this is absurd! (cries out with astonishment)
  
   "Erie" worker: It is the law, if you must know! (responds sarcastically)
  
   Judge: Order! (knocks twice with hammer) I give you last warning!
  
   "Erie" worker: My mistake, Your Honor!
  
   Tompkins's lawyer: Objection, Your Honor! In the light of aforementioned Article of the Rules of Decision Act, term `the laws' should be defined as corresponding to statutes only, not common law of the state, and speaking of Swift v. Tyson decision, Your Honor, since there are no such statutes, the court should consider `federal general common law' applying to this case. That is to say, the court should consider `ordinary negligence' tenet.
  
   Judge: (thinking for a while) Objection accepted. In Swift v. Tyson decision, the court decided that in case of lack of statutes, federal courts should apply `federal general common law' and may not take into account norms of common law of the state of Pennsylvania. Now, is jury ready to read the verdict, Miss Anderson?
  
   Jury representative: Yes, Your Honor! (waiting for the verdict to arrive) The jury court finds "Erie" Railroad Co. guilty and obliges it to pay recovery in the amount of $30,000.
  
   Judge: Pass me the verdict, please. (pause) Case is dismissed. (knocks once with the hammer)
  
   (Narrator speaks: "Erie" Railroad Co. appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, however it has supported the decision of the federal District jury court. So the company appealed to the Supreme Court. Because of the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and took the case).
  
   (Narrator: The joint decision was delivered by Justice Louis Brandeis who overturned Swift v. Tyson doctrine that allowed federal judges sitting in a state ignore the common law local decisions of state courts in the same state, in cases based on diversity jurisdiction and cancelled the decisions of the federal District jury court and the Circuit Court of Appeals).
  
   Justice Brandeis gives the joint decision of the Supreme Court Justices: The Supreme Court investigated the case "Erie" Railroad Co. v. Tompkins and decided the following:
   Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. And whether the law of the State shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State, whether they be local in their nature or `general', be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. There is no federal general common law.
  
   Tompkins: Oh, no! (loudly)
  
   "Erie" Worker: Yes! (loudly)
  

(Knock with the hammer. Case is dismissed.)

  
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список
Сайт - "Художники" .. || .. Доска об'явлений "Книги"