Court Opinion

ID: 9454253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:40:57.438455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:02.395838
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing on the question of assumption of the risk asserts that the majority of the court, hereafter court, has elected to disregard the tenets of Erie Ry. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188. The court does not in any way deny the applicability of state law; it merely, because of the existence of special circumstances, does not regard the reported state decisions as dictating a result in plaintiff’s favor. The last portion of his dissent makes clear that our Brother Coffin interprets the evidence as denying rather than supporting the possibility of finding special circumstances, because he interprets the evidence as reassuring to the decedent, rather than the reverse. He therefore finds the decided Rhode Island cases controlling. We do not agree. When what the juiy could have found to be joint venturers learned, for example, that there was trouble with the altimeter, this would seem anything but reassuring in an instrument flight.
The balance of the petition is flatly in violation of the language and intent of Local Rule 6.
The petition for rehearing is denied. This opinion is by the majority of the court.