Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): indicate that the defendant should nevertheless have foreseen that injury could result. Here, the testimony of the store manager and the frozen food manager has generated a fact question in regard to whether Miners could have foreseen Amber’s injury, and, thus, whether Miners was negligent. Miners was aware that young children would be among those likely to retrieve food items from the freezer. The store manager testified that one’s hands could stick to the wall of the freezer if no protective coating of frost had formed. Reasonable minds could disagree as to whether Miners should have foreseen that a child could receive frostbite burns if there was no frost covering the freezer walls. Cf. City of Cedar Falls v. Cedar Falls Community Sch. Dist., 617 N.W.2d 11, 16-17 (Iowa 2000) (<HOLDING>). Further, reasonable minds could differ as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding it is a question of fact (B) holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement (C) holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact (D) holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because whether the danger posed by a swimming pool was known or obvious was a fact question (E) holding that question of whether golf cart with key in ignition posed foreseeable danger to children in context of school field trip was question for jury
Output (English): holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement