Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): otherwise. City of Bellevue v. Kravik, 69 Wn. App. 735, 743, 850 P.2d 559 (1993). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a single jury to decide this case. CONCLUSION We hold that the “fairly and knowingly made” standard applies only to personal injury releases when the injured party claims unknown injuries, so the trial court should not have used that standard in this case. But, under general contract principles, questions of material fact remain regarding whether the release may be avoided. We therefore reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Becker, C.J., and Schindler, J., concur. Reconsideration denied June 23, 2003. 1 In determining whether a release was fairly and knowingly made, courts are 19 (1929) (<HOLDING>). Some jurisdictions have also distinguished 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that release did not bar plaintiffs claim because plaintiff had no ground to suspect that act complained of had taken place when giving release (B) holding question of fact existed regarding fraud where release signed by plaintiff not understanding english language and defendant failed to cause release to be explained in plaintiffs language (C) holding that exculpatory clause in release plaintiff signed as part of a health club membership agreement was not specific enough to release club from negligence liability (D) holding that release discharges only persons named in or sufficiently described by terms of release (E) holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release
Output (English): holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release