Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The parties have not briefed the choice of law issue on assumption of the risk, although both have referenced Pennsylvania law during their arguments. {See Docket Nos. 261, 264, 282, 285). As such, the Court will look to Pennsylvania law to determine if KBR’s defense of assumption of the risk is supported by evidence and legitimately implicates military judgments. See Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Amer., 609 F.3d 143, 170 (3d Cir.2010) (quoting Assicurazioni Generali, S.P.A v. Clover, 195 F.3d 161, 164 (3d Cir.1999)) (“the first question to be answered [under Pennsylvania law] is whether the parties explicitly or implicitly have chosen the relevant law.”); see also Allegrino v. Conway E & S, Inc., Civ. A. No. 09-1507, 2010 WL 4052923, at *6 n. 16 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 14, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Although a system of comparative negligence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the implied consent to new york law manifest in the parties briefs was sufficient to establish choice of law (B) holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision (C) holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court (D) holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same (E) holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges
Output (English): holding that the implied consent to new york law manifest in the parties briefs was sufficient to establish choice of law