Court Opinion

ID: 9448304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:30:49.384359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:22.254470
License: Public Domain

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The foregoing exhaustive opinion gives me no trouble as to liability. In short, I regard it as a reasonable inference that the multiplicity of figures given to Knox were not intended to enlighten but were intended to put a film of sweet luseiousness over the shell of a bitter cocoanut.
As to the element of damage for mental suffering, I cannot yet say I am satisfied with the American Law Institute’s work in the field. Some day I may be. Fraser v. Blue Cross Animal Hospital, 39 Haw. 370, convinces me, in a diversity case, I should concur in the allowance for that item. In another case from another state, the question will have to be reexamined.
If history repeats itself, many good insurance men will be encouraged to be alarmed that this decision puts their livelihood in jeopardy. There is no reason to think so. The answer is: “Read the facts — if you have a full hour to do so.”