Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty. E.g., Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 529 S.E.2d 710 (2000). Evidence is relevant and admissible if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rules 401, 402, SCRE. It is well settled that the admission and rejection of testimony is largely within the trial court’s sound discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. A.2d 1033, 1034-35 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Stone v. United Eng’g, 197 W.Va. 347, 475 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction (B) holding that occupational health and safety administration osha standards were admissible (C) holding that flexibility in park services standards for establishing speed limits did not mean that the standards basic scientific safety specifications may be disregarded (D) holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards (E) holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea
Output (English): holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea