Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): release she signed. Gene and Priscilla argue that Leonida assumed the risk of mistake because she did not ask Priscilla to read and translate the entire contract before she signed it. But according to the testimony of both Leonida and Priscilla, the insurance agent went over the contract and explained it to Priscilla, who then translated for Leonida. Leonida testified that Priscilla told her that the release was for lost wages only. Although Priscilla testified that she told Leonida the release covered pain and suffering as well as lost wages, we do not weigh credibility. Further, Priscilla is a family member whom Leonida trusted to explain the contract, so we cannot say that Leonida was negligent as a matter of law for relying on Priscilla’s explanation. Cf. Mesa, 193 S.E.2d at 927 (<HOLDING>). See also Bjorklund, 35 Wash, at 444 (holding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding signers negligent for failing to have englishspeaking daughter explain writing (B) holding that suspension for fortyfive days with requirement of paying restitution of 47950 to client plus costs was appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorneys conduct relating to representation of client in divorce action in failing to act with diligence failing to keep client informed failing to adequately explain matters to client and failing to return unearned advancefee upon termination of representation and for attorneys conduct in failing to respond to two letters from office of bar counsel seeking explanation of inconsistencies in attorneys response to bar complaint (C) holding that daughter had no express authority to sign arbitration agreement for mother where no power of attorney and daughter did not discuss signing the agreement with her mother (D) holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient (E) holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving
Output (English): holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving