Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in her favor on her sleep apnea claim, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate on Counts 1 and 3 of plaintiffs first amended complaint. See Biester, 77 F.3d at 1266. D. Negligent Hiring and Negligent Entrustment Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in hiring Mullins and in entrusting a company truck to him because defendant knew or should have known that Mullins suffered from sleep apnea and was at an increased risk of falling asleep on the job while driving. As the district court noted, in order to survive summary judgment on either of these claims, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligent act of Mullins in falling asleep at the wheel. See DeMatteo v. Simon, 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361, 363 (Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Valdez v. Warner, 106 N.M. 305, 742 P.2d 517, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue (B) holding that claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing defendant to proceed while incompetent was facially insufficient where defendant did not allege he actually was incompetent to proceed to trial or insane at the time of his offense (C) holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage (D) holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims (E) holding that to recover on claim of negligent entrustment plaintiff must establish that 1 defendant entrusted its vehicle to the entrustee 2 defendant knew or should have known that the entrustee was an incompetent driver and 3 the entrustees incompetence caused the injury at issue
Output (English): holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage