Court Opinion

ID: 9445265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:24:07.552684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:11.380844
License: Public Domain

SANBORN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
In order to prevail on this appeal, the Government would have to demonstrate that, under South Dakota law, a private individual, under a similar contract and under similar circumstances, would not have been liable for the loss sustained by Kelly. The tort liability of the Government depends upon whether a private person would be liable under like circumstances “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” Federal Tort Claims Act, 60 Stat. 842, 844, 63 Stat. 62, Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 1346(b).
I think it is unnecessary to rule that, as a matter of general law, the contract provisions upon which the Government relies for a reversal were not intended to cover negligence in the performance of a contract such as that in suit. It seems to me that all that need be said in this case is that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence were clearly issues of fact for the trial court, and that the issues of assumption of risk and limitation of liability, under the terms of the contract, were doubtful questions of local law as to which the trial court reached a permissible conclusion. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey v. Foxbilt, Inc., 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 641, 643 and cases cited.
I agree that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.