Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): American Airlines, Inc., 996 F.2d 1315, 1319 (1st Cir.1993) (finding doctrine not to apply because of “no breach of a special transport promise” and “no deviation from the kind of thing one might expect to find when a carrier has lost, damaged, or delayed cargo”) (internal quotation omitted); United States Gold Corp. v. Federal Express Corp., 719 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (citing cases upholding validity of limitation of liability with respect to express carriers). None of the cases cited by Nippon are to the contrary. See, e.g., Coughlin v. TWA, 847 F.2d 1432, 1433-34 (9th Cir.1988) (breach of special contract provision to carry valuables in cabin) (per curiam); Nissan Fire & Marines Ins. Co. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., No. C-96-03621-VRQ, 1997 WL 81179 (N.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>); Information Control Corp. v. United Airlines 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented (B) recognizing doctrine (C) recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion (D) recognizing validity of doctrine but finding that the number of drivers is not such a safety measure (E) recognizing the validity of the singlelarceny doctrine in new mexico
Output (English): recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion