P filed a diversity suit against D seeking damages for loss of both of his forearms in a work-related accident.
P already received Workers Comp award but was seeking damages in excess of that award.
D claimed that P was a "statutory employee" whose recovery was limited to that of the state Workers Comp Act.
Procedural History:
District court found for P, P not statutory employee.
COA reversed, found for D, P was statutory employee.
SCOTUS reversed and remanded, P should have to opportunity to present evidence that he was not a statutory employee. P entitled to jury trial.
Issues:
Should the federal policy favoring jury decisions of disputed fact yield to state rules regarding juries?
Holding/Rule:
The federal court should use Erie and apply state law unless there are significant countervailing factors pointing towards following the federal policy. In this case, there is a strong federal policy for the use of the judge-jury relationship to resolve disputes of fact (as guided by the 7th Amendment). Thus, the federal policy favoring jury decisions should not yield to state rules.
Reasoning:
Under SC law, questions about this type of issue are matters of law decided by the court without the help of a jury. There are no good reason given for why the jury is displaced as to the factual issue raised by an affirmative defense under the SC law.
It seems that these issues are decided by judges just because that's the way it's always been, not because of the wording of the statute. Thus, the requirement of a decision by a judge appears to be merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties.
However, Erie can still reach form and mode determination if there are no countervailing considerations.
There are affirmative countervailing considerations here though; an essential characteristic of the federal system is the manner in which the court distributes trial functions between judge and jury. Under the influence of the 7th Amendment, the court assigns the decisions of disputed questions of fact to the jury.
State laws cannot alter the essential character or function of a federal court. There is a strong federal policy against allowing state rules to disrupt the judge-jury relationship in the federal courts.
It is not even clear that this issue would be "outcome determinative". There are many measures available in federal court where the judge can make sure the correct verdict is entered.
The judge can comment on the weight of evidence and the credibility of witnesses.
Can grant a new trial if the verdict appears to be against the weight of the evidence.
The likelihood of a different result is not strong enough as to require the federal practice of jury determination of disputed factual issues to yield to state rule in the interest of uniformity of outcome.
