A spectator at a professional hockey game was injured when an errant hockey puck flew over the glass boards and struck him in the head, causing permanent eye damage. The spectator brought an action for negligence against the facility owner in federal district court under diversity. By statute, the state in which the federal court is located allows the use of assumption of the risk as a defense when a spectator is injured at a sporting event. Although no valid federal statute or rule governs this issue, federal courts have generally not permitted facility owners to raise an assumption of the risk defense, to encourage facility owners to take more stringent precautions regarding spectator safety. The federal court opted to apply federal common law to resolve the issue, and the resolution was in the spectator's favor. However, a different outcome would have occurred if the district court had applied state law. Was the court's application of federal common law proper?

No, because a different outcome would have occurred if state law was applied.

Explanation:

Assumption of the risk defense is a law of torts that bars or reduces the plaintiff's right to make a recovery in cases where negligence occurred. The defendant should be able to demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowing accepted the risk of participating in an activity.

In the given scenario the spectator is the plaintiff and if the assumption of risk defence is used he will not be able to get a ruling in his favour.

The state allows assumption of risk defence which would have resulted in a ruling in favour of the facility owners.

However the federal court did not allow this defence and ruled in favour of the spectator.

The application of the federal common law was not proper as a different outcome would have occurred if state law was applied.

the answer is tom watson. tom watson created this epitaph because he wanted to increase the sympathy felt by people towards the murder of mary phagan.