Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law – History of the Erie Doctrine Self-Quiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Erie Doctrine applies to cases which are heard in the:
Choice 1 State courts.
Choice 2 Federal courts.
Choice 3 State or federal courts.State or federal courts.
Choice 4 State and federal courts.
A court, in applying the Erie doctrine, applies state or federal law in which of the following manners?
Choice 1 State law applies to substantive law claims while federal law applies in procedural law claims.
Choice 2 Federal law applies to substantive law claims while state law applies in procedural law claims.
Choice 3 Federal law applies to both substantive and procedural law claims.
Choice 4 State law applies to both substantive and procedural law claims.
The Erie doctrine is primarily applicable to cases in which the court has which basis for its jurisdiction over the case?
Choice 1 Federal question jurisdiction.
Choice 2 State law jurisdiction.
Choice 3 Federal diversity jurisdiction.
Choice 4 Personal jurisdiction.
Mark, a resident of Missouri, is a professional baseball player with the St. Louis Cardinals. On August 15, 2003, the Cardinals are playing the Chicago Cubs in Wrigley Field (in Chicago). During the game, Mark strikes Sammy, the Cubs’ outfielder, with the ball in his right eye causing temporary blurred vision. Sammy is unable to play the remainder of the season. Sammy sues Mark in federal court in Chicago for $750,000 in lost compensation and inability to work. Illinois state law provides that Sammy can potentially recover $750,000 for his claims. A federal statute allows for the recovery of $100,000 for lost compensation, but only $25,000 for his inability to work. Which law should the federal court apply?
Choice 1 Federal law.
Choice 2 Neither Illinois nor federal law.
Choice 3 Either Illinois or federal law, upon the discretion of the judge.
Choice 4 Illinois law.
Danielle, a resident of Florida, is an avid bird watcher. Late one evening (when the sun was setting in the western sky) she was out looking for a rare species of flamingo. Tom, also a resident of Florida, was hunting for mallards. As he was looking out in a westerly direction, he was honing in on a mallard and was attempting to shoot it when, suddenly blinded by the light through his riflescope, he flinched and fired, striking Danielle in the shoulder. Danielle suffered permanent injuries and sued Tom for $80,000 in damages in federal court in Florida. A Florida negligence law limits the recovery for the physical injury to $77,000, while federal negligence law allows for the potential recovery of $80,000. Which law should the federal court apply?
Choice 1 The Florida negligence law applies.
Choice 2 The federal negligence law applies.
Choice 3 Either Florida or federal negligence law could apply.
Choice 4 Neither the Florida nor the federal negligence laws apply.
George, a resident of Las Vegas, is a golf instructor at Desert Holes, a private golf club and hotel. On July 9, 2003, George was giving a lesson to Sophia, a resident of Butte, Montana, who was on a two-week vacation and staying at Desert Holes. George was attempting to show Sophia what a proper swing looked like when he suddenly struck her in the nose and mouth with his 9-iron. Sophia suffered a broken nose that required rhinoplasty and extensive dental work, costing her $90,000. Sophia (who never looked quite the same again) sued George and Desert Holes in negligence and battery in federal court in Montana on September 15, 2003. Federal law requires that an answer to any claims for negligence and battery be filed within 30 days of the date of injury, while Montana state law requires that answers be filed within 90 days of the date of injury. Which law should the court apply?
Choice 1 Federal law applies.
Choice 2 Montana law applies.
Choice 3
Josephine, a resident of Ohio, was visiting her sister in Cleveland, Ohio. On February 2, 2003, she decided to stop in a local coffee shop called Starbrew. Paul, the owner of Starbrew, was operating the espresso machine that afternoon when Josephine ordered a double half-caffeinated latte from him. He brewed the coffee to her specifications, but failed to secure the lid of the steaming drink. When he handed it to her, the lid slipped off and the scalding liquid poured out all over her hand. Josephine suffered a 3rd degree burn on her hand, which required plastic surgery. Josephine sued Paul and Starbrew in federal court in Ohio for $100,000 in damages for her injuries and filed her claim on April 3, 2003. Paul’s attorney insisted that there was no merit to Josephine’s claim (Paul swore that he fastened the lid securely on the cup) and filed a motion for summary judgment (to essentially dismiss the claim). Paul’s attorney filed the motion on July 10, 2003. Ohio state law allows for the recovery of damages for negligence and personal injury up to $100,000. Ohio procedural law also requires that motions for summary judgment be filed within 30 days of the filing of the claim. Federal law allows for the recovery of damages for negligence and personal injury up to $80,000. The federal rules of procedure require that the motion be filed within 60 days of the filing of the claim. Which laws should the federal court apply in Josephine’s lawsuit?
Choice 1 Ohio negligence and personal injury laws, and Ohio procedural law for filing the motion for summary judgment should apply.
Choice 2 Federal negligence and personal injury laws, and Ohio procedural law for filing the motion for summary judgment should apply.
Choice 3 Ohio negligence and personal injury laws, and federal procedural law for filing the motion for summary judgment should apply.
Choice 4 Federal negligence and personal injury laws, and federal procedural law for filing the motion for summary judgment should apply.
Ryan, a resident of Connecticut, was moving into his new apartment in New Haven, Connecticut. Ryan, a struggling concert pianist, enlisted the help of his brothers, Craig and Greg (also from Connecticut) who together were attempting to move his piano up three flights of stairs. Suddenly Greg lost his footing and the piano came hurtling down the stairs, crushing Mary, a resident of Rhode Island who was there visiting her cousin. Mary died as a result of her injuries. Mary’s family sues Ryan, Craig and Greg in federal court in Connecticut on June 23, 2003 for negligence and civil claims relating to Mary’s wrongful death totaling $200,000. The trial was set to begin on July 5, 2003. An essential party to the case was the landlord of Ryan’s building (as Ryan and his brother’s defense was that the steps were faulty and was the cause of their dropping the piano). The Connecticut state law dictates that there is a $500,000 limit to recovery for wrongful death claims, however it requires that all parties be “joined” (in other words, all parties necessary to the lawsuit must be formally entered as parties to the lawsuit) at least 15 days before the trial. Federal law provides no recovery for wrongful death but provides for negligence claims up to $100,000. It also requires that all parties be joined at least 45 days before trial. With reference to the negligence and wrongful death claims, which law should be applied?
Choice 1 Connecticut state law should be applied.
Choice 2 Federal law should be applied.
Choice 3 Neither federal nor state law should be applied.
Choice 4 None of the above.
In the above case, with reference to the issue of joinder of parties, which law should be applied?
Choice 1 Connecticut state law should be applied.
Choice 2 Federal law should be applied.
Choice 3 Either federal or state law could be applied, at the judge’s discretion.
Choice 4 None of the above.

© 2003 - 2018 National Paralegal College