Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): need for medication and his condition. The booking officer ... failed to use the property in such a way to avoid [appellant] being injured. The improper use of the property proximately caused the injuries to [appellant]. The gist of appellant’s negligence claim is that the booking officer’s placement of the stool was equivalent to “use” of the booking room and that the officer negligently or improperly “used” the room because he failed to “use” it in such a manner as to avoid injury to appellant. When, as in this case, a motion for summary judgment is directed solely at the facts alleged in the pleadings, we will accept as true every allegation in appellant’s pleadings against which the motion is directed. See, e.g., Adamo v. State Farm, Lloyds Co., 853 S.W 2d 528, 529 (Tex.1975) (<HOLDING>). If appellant’s pleadings, when liberally 
 Holding statements: (A) holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient (B) holding that the hospitals failure to provide patient with a hospital bed with side rails brought the case under  1010212 (C) holding that upon admission to a hospital the hospitals lien attached to the proceeds of all insurance claims accruing to the patient or his legal representative as a result of the patients hospitalization (D) holding that hospitals failure to provide epileptic and mentally retarded patient with a life preserver to be used as part of his swimming attire brought the case under  1010212 (E) holding that universitys failure to provide football player with proper protective gear to be used as part of his football uniform brought the case under  1010212
Output (English): holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient