Opinion ID: 603521
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did Defendant Owe Plaintiff Any Duty?

Text: 9 Federal courts sitting in diversity cases must apply the substantive laws of the states in which they sit.... Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 760 F.2d 481, 487 (3d Cir.1985); see Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Accordingly, the district court was obliged to apply Pennsylvania law. Nevertheless, the district court presumably based its conclusion that defendant did not owe plaintiff any duty on general policy considerations independent of Pennsylvania law. 1 In so doing, the district court failed to appreciate that [a] federal court's independent determination of policy is quite irrelevant ... if it is inconsistent with the state law which the court is obliged to apply. System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Dev. Corp., 555 F.2d 1131, 1142 (3d Cir.1977). Thus, because the district court failed to apply state law in concluding that defendant did not owe plaintiff any duty, we do not address that basis for its decision. Accordingly, we turn to whether, under Pennsylvania law, defendant breached the duty it owed to plaintiff--the alternate basis the district court gave for its judgment. 10