Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): this Court has yet to decide whether a posse 296-97 (Tex. 1983) (reversing directed verdict where, “even in the absence of evidence showing the storeowner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the presence on the floor of the specific object causing the fall,” the plaintiff had shown that the storeowner failed to protect its customers from a dangerous condition it knew to reoccur); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (“A plaintiff does not have to prove that the store owner had actual notice of the specific condition giving rise to the injury if the plaintiff can establish that the store owner was aware of the risk of a recurrence of a hazardous condition of the premises.”); Rallis v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 159 N.H. 95, 977 A.2d 527, 531-32 (2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Moultrey v. Great A & P Tea Co., 281 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could find constructive notice from evidence that the defendants knew of a recurring dangerous condition (B) holding that circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory presumptions where the issue was whether the physical exertions of the claimants job aggravated or contributed to his heart condition (C) holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant (D) holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses (E) holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat
Output (English): holding that circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the statutory presumptions where the issue was whether the physical exertions of the claimants job aggravated or contributed to his heart condition