Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the cause in fact and legal cause of the damage.” Glover, 968 So.2d at 1277 (¶ 31) (citing Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 180, at 443 (2000)) (emphasis added). And a defendant’s negligence is the legal cause of the damage only when the “damage is the type, or within the classification, of damage the negligent actor should reasonably expect (or foresee) to result from the negligent act.” Id. at 1277 (¶ 33). ¶ 19. The circuit court held Faul offered no proof to show Perlman knew or should have known of Adkins’s propensities to commit the sexual assaults or that Perlman had any knowledge that the crimes were being committed. The circuit court applied the foreseeability test for premises owners from Simpson, which looks for actual or constructive knowledge. Simpson, 880 So.2d at 1051 (¶ 14) (<HOLDING>). We note California’s foreseeability test for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that actual knowledge of a coconspirator possessing a firearm qualifies as foreseeability (B) holding that the plaintiff must prove that management level employees had actual or constructive knowledge about the existence of a sexually  hostile environment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action (C) holding that the innocent owner defense hinges upon the claimants actual not constructive knowledge (D) recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge (E) holding plaintiff can prove foreseeability by showing the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the assailants violent nature
Output (English): recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge