Contributory Negligence Across State Lines: Klaxon, Public Policy, and the Empty Defense
Maria, domiciled in State A, was driving through State C when a tractor-trailer owned by Hasten Freight crossed the center line and struck her car. Hasten is incorporated and headquartered in State B. Maria suffered a broken leg and a traumatic brain injury; her medical bills are $480,000 and her lost earnings are $900,000. State C applies contributory negligence, a complete bar, and caps noneconomic damages at $250,000. State A applies modified comparative fault with a 51% bar and has no cap. Maria sues in federal district court in State A on diversity grounds. Hasten admits its driver dozed off but alleges Maria was texting and was 15% at fault. The forum's choice-of-law rule is lex loci delicti. Maria argues that applying State C's contributory-negligence rule would violate State A public policy and that, in any event, Erie requires a federal court to apply State A's comparative-fault rule. Discovery produces a phone record of one outgoing text at 2:14 p.m. and a crash time of 2:31 p.m.; the truck's dashcam shows Maria's hands on the wheel in the seconds before impact.
1. Which state's tort law governs, and does Maria's Erie argument succeed?
Read the worked answer
State C's law governs, and the Erie argument fails.
The Erie doctrine supplies no federal tort law in a diversity case. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric extends that principle to choice of law: a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits, not the rules it might prefer. The forum, State A, applies lex loci delicti, so the law of the place of the injury - State C - supplies the substantive rules, including contributory negligence and the damages cap.
Maria's argument inverts Erie. She is essentially asking the federal court to apply State A's substantive law as a matter of federal command, which is exactly what Erie and Klaxon forbid. If she wants State A's comparative-fault rule, she cannot get it merely by choosing a federal forum.
The public policy exception is real but narrow. A forum may decline to apply foreign law that offends a fundamental policy of the forum. Courts invoke it sparingly, typically for issues like marriage recognition or guest statutes that reflect deep-rooted local values. The choice between contributory and comparative negligence is a policy disagreement, not a fundamental one, and State A has not declared otherwise. Expect the court to apply State C's rules in full.
The practical consequence is severe: if a jury finds Maria even 1% at fault, her recovery is zero. That is why the third issue below decides the case.
2. If State C law applies, how does the $250,000 cap operate, and does it reach Maria's medical bills and lost earnings?
Read the worked answer
The cap applies to noneconomic damages only and is applied by the court after the verdict.
Damages caps are substantive for choice-of-law and Erie purposes, so State C's cap travels with State C's liability rules. The cap limits compensation for noneconomic harm - pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and similar intangible losses. It does not touch economic damages.
Maria's $480,000 in medical bills and $900,000 in lost earnings are economic damages and are recoverable in full if proven, subject to the ordinary rules of causation, reasonableness, and mitigation. The cap applies only to whatever the jury awards for her brain injury and her pain, and the court, not the jury, reduces that figure. A jury that returns $2,000,000 for noneconomic loss would see it reduced to $250,000. A jury that returns $200,000 would see no reduction.
One trap to avoid: the cap does not apply to the total judgment, and it is not a cap on punitive damages, which are governed separately and are generally unavailable absent a threshold of egregious conduct. Another: if the cap statute contains a periodic-payment or expert-affidavit requirement, that procedural machinery is also likely to be applied as part of the substantive scheme.
3. On this record, should the court submit the contributory-negligence question to the jury, and what is the consequence of the answer for Maria's recovery?
Read the worked answer
No - the court should grant judgment as a matter of law on contributory negligence, which means Maria's claim survives under State C's complete-bar rule.
Under State C law, the defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance. On a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a), the court asks whether a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hasten, could find for Hasten on that issue. If the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find contributory negligence, the court decides the issue as a matter of law.
Here, the phone record shows an outgoing text 17 minutes before impact. That proves Maria used her phone at some point during the drive; it does not prove she was distracted at the moment of collision. The dashcam footage affirmatively shows both hands on the wheel in the seconds before the truck crossed the center line. Hasten has no witness, no admission, and no expert testimony tying the text to the crash. Negligence requires a causal link between the conduct and the injury, and Hasten's evidence supports only speculation about what Maria was doing at 2:31 p.m.
The consequence matters enormously. Because State C's contributory negligence is a complete bar, a jury finding of even slight fault would wipe out Maria's $1.38 million in economic damages. A JMOL on that issue removes the defense and sends the case to the jury only on damages. Had the record shown a text at 2:30 p.m. or a witness who saw the phone in her hand at impact, the question would be for the jury and the stakes would be enormous.