United States v. Chu Kong Yin, AKA Alfred Chu

935 F.2d 990

9th Cir.

1991

Check Treatment

EUREKA URETHANE, INC., Appellant, v. P.B.A., INC. and The Professional Bowlers Association of America, Appellees.

No. 90-2727

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted June 13, 1991. Decided June 28, 1991.

935 F.2d 990

tions but decides the entire case by a general verdict.

Smith v. Hussman Refrigerator Co., 619 F.2d 1229, 1245 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 116, 66 L.Ed.2d 46 (1980). Although the district court should have eliminated the words “this defense,” the error was harmless because the other instructions made it clear that assumption of risk is an element of fault, not a complete bar to recovery.

We need not reach the issue presented by Snapper‘s cross-appeal because it would become relevant only if we granted Bonds a new trial.

III.

Because any errors in the district court‘s jury instruction on assumption of risk were harmless, we affirm.

James J. Raymond, argued (Conny Davinroy Beatty, on brief), St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Douglas C. Ross, Seattle, Wash., argued (Payton Smith and Mary Steele, Seattle, Wash., and Robert S. Allen and Eric D. Paulsrud, St. Louis, Mo., on brief), for appellees.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Eureka Urethane, Inc. appeals from summary judgment entered by the district court¹ rejecting its seven claims based on sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2 (West Supp.1991), because PBA, Inc., and the Professional Bowlers Association of America refused to approve Eureka‘s “Bud Ball” for use in televised bowling tournaments.

746 F.Supp. 915. In addition, the court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a pendent state law claim based on tortious interference with business relationships. The case has been exhaustively briefed by the parties and oral arguments heard. We are not persuaded that the district court made any error of law in its thorough and carefully researched opinion. We affirm on the basis of the district court‘s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Notes

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.